Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Swirls In the Afterglow of the Big Bang Could Set Stage For Major Discovery

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the secrets-of-the-universe dept.

Science 54

sciencehabit writes "Scientists have spotted swirling patterns in the radiation lingering from the big bang, the so-called cosmic microwave background. The observation itself isn't Earth-shaking, as researchers know that these particular swirls or 'B-modes' originated in conventional astrophysics, but the result suggests that scientists are closing in on a much bigger prize: B-modes spawned by gravity waves that rippled through the infant universe. That observation would give them a direct peek into the cosmos' first fraction of a second and possibly shed light on how it all began."

cancel ×

54 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'd just Brownian Motion (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44395153)

In the intergalactic teacup of eternity.

one lump or two?

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (0)

gibbled (215234) | about a year ago | (#44395359)

Thump Thump!

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395521)

I like my lumps like I like my universes, one with evil beards, and one without.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (1)

Don Head (2998319) | about a year ago | (#44396595)

In the intergalactic teacup of eternity.

one lump or two?

I entered some code in terminal to see if Linux could explain "creation" to me. Oddly enough it can and did. "dig +short txt creation.wp.dg.cx". Without the quotes. "Creation may refer to:\; In religion and philosophy: Creation ex nihilo, the concept that matter comes \"from nothing\", Creation myth, stories of the supernatural creation of the Earth, Genesis creation narrative, the biblical account of creation http://en./ [en.] " "wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation"

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (1)

anubi (640541) | about a year ago | (#44396887)

This is just my guess, I will lay it out here.

I believe what we are seeing is the explosion of a big black hole. One that had consumed the universe before it.

What made it explode? Centrifugal force. The Universe the black hole ate was rotating. What we have now is rotating. Rotational inertia is conserved. Remnants of the great centrifugal slingout (aka "Big Bang") can be observed everywhere with everything spun out still spinning. This giant black hole kept on eating and eating and eating matter spiraling into it. Eventually it got to spinning so fast the mass/energy within could no longer be constrained by its gravitational force, it became unstable, resulting in one helluva bang. In the black hole, elements as we know them were completely disassembled and packed as energy and subatomic particles. Those were spewed off into the void with great vigor. In the void, they reassembled themselves into the elements, mostly the simplest one, hydrogen, that we observe.

Even today, one can observe smaller black holes already at work on the next cycle, matter and whatever else they can eat spiraling in... spinning them up. They will eat each other too. I believe we are destined to go through this as well ( but definitely not in our lifetimes ). This cycle appears to have a period of trillions of years. I get the idea there are a lot more universes out there than the one we can observe. I get the whole idea the whole shebang is rotating. That's what makes it work. Where did the whole shebang come from - I have to leave that one to theologians. I believe the correct word to describe the whole shebang is "infinite". In energy, time, space, and matter ( and all four are manifestations of each other )

The universe we live in, the one we can observe, is exactly that.... the observable universe. I believe we are one infinitesimally small part of the whole shebang.

If you and I are on opposite sides of a merry-go-round in motion, are you traveling with respect to me, despite the fact neither you nor I are moving around on the platform of the merry-go-round? From my perspective, you do not appear to be moving, but if I holler to you do I get a doppler shift in the sound? If I attempt to spray you with a jet of water, does not the water take a curved course to get to you? If I tried this with light, would I not get a red-shift - more pronounced the further away you are from me? Is that not what we observe already?

Ok - I may be full of it, but that is my personal pet theory of how it all began, well, er, how what we see now began, as my pet theory has everything, the mix of energy, time, space, and matter, always existed in past, and will always exist in the future, albeit the proportions are constantly in oscillation, much like the interchange of potential and kinetic energy in a resonant object.

There is an eclectic mix of quite knowledgeable folk here - I invite comments on this.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44396921)

Unfortunately that doesn't really fit with the general relativity description of a spinning black hole. GR provides a limit to the speed of a spinning black hole. But that limit is not obtainable, because trying to add any angular momentum to the black hole to reach the limit would require matter to be flung in at the speed of light, while avoiding any matter falling in in the wrong way. There are more practical rotation limits below that, in the sense that outside of convoluted cases, just material falling or creating a black hole via star collapse would have an even lower limit.

Even if you found some way to rotate it too fast, you would end up with a naked singularity, which while has many questions about whether such a thing can exist, probably still doesn't help your idea out much.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (1)

anubi (640541) | about a year ago | (#44397145)

Consider what the gravitational tug of a black hole is, as well as the matter spiraling in ( as observed )... it was my understanding that the incoming matter and energy would be traveling at the speed of light as it crossed the event horizon. From there on in, I have no idea what state the matter is in, but I highly suspect its completely broken down into something highly compressible, maybe not taking up volume at all as we know it.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397285)

A black hole would not accelerate matter to the speed of light. To a distant observer, in falling material will appear to slow down, and from the perspective of someone in free fall, you would be accelerating, but not at any special rate when crossing the event horizon. Tidal forces that would stretch or pull apart material is independent of the event horizon and depends on how big the black hole is. For small ones, this could happen well outside the event horizon, and for big ones, it could be well inside the event horizon.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (1)

anubi (640541) | about a year ago | (#44404289)

Somehow, I had the notion that at the event horizon, from above, it would look pitch black, as anything incoming would not be able to escape. However, should I ( hypothetically of course ) be able to pass through the event horizon, I would expect enormous pressures and light. Lots of it. From this perspective, the event horizon should look perfectly reflective.

I figured if the thing wasn't spinning, it could go on this way forever, eating and eating, and getting bigger and bigger, until it consumed everything.

But, the way I see it, the spinning is the fly in the ointment. The black hole eats so much, and in doing so spins up so fast it can't contain itself. When it has so much spin the gravitational field can't contain the innards. Part of the substance of the hole extrudes beyond the event horizon, the hole becomes unstable, and we get another cycle of the big bang.

Sometimes I wonder if we are also living in a great black hole - meaning there is no way out of our universe. Galaxy - yes, but universe, no. For us, nothing would exist outside it.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44407565)

When it has so much spin the gravitational field can't contain the innards. Part of the substance of the hole extrudes beyond the event horizon, the hole becomes unstable, and we get another cycle of the big bang.

How do you spin it up faster without adding matter? If you can only spin it up by adding matter, how do you add the matter that would make it spin too fast? If it would spin too fast to hold itself together, how did that extra matter that make it go faster get in there in the first place?

The problem is that you can only make a black hole spin faster by fling stuff in the right direction into to add to the spinning, and you have to add it such that it goes in faster than the black hole is spinning, otherwise it would just slow down. At some point, the black hole will be spinning so fast, you can't actually add anything to it. Although horribly inaccurate in light of GR, if you are thinking of the black hole as some object that can fling itself apart, the idea would be you any thing going fast enough to spin it up that point would also be flinging itself away from the black hole and not actually hit it.

Re: I'd just Brownian Motion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397115)

this is not the stupidist thing i have ever heard.
but i had to think about it for awhile.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#44397867)

If it were centrifugal force the universe would have have a center of mass around which it rotates, as far as anyone can tell, it doesn't. Merry-go-rounds are 4 dimensional objects, 3 of space and one of time. A singularity has only one spacial dimension, "distance" does not make sense in one dimension which means motion (eg: spinning) is impossible, since motion is impossible time cannot exist. Also your speculation seems to assume space has always existed and the lumpy bits of the universe expanded into it. Also if it was CF we would not see the even expansion we do, the rate of expansion would be biased wrt the center of gravity..

The most interesting idea I've heard for a while comes from Roger Penrose, who points out that the ultimate fate of the universe has many similarities with a singularity. The expansion rate means that eventually even the radiation left over from the heat death of the universe will be stretched flat, the universe becomes dimensionless, time and motion no longer make any sense.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44399957)

A singularity has only one spacial dimension, "distance" does not make sense in one dimension which means motion (eg: spinning) is impossible, since motion is impossible time cannot exist.

Point particles can have inherent angular momentum. Although that is irrelevant in the case of vanilla general relativity, where there are solutions for spinning black holes, but the singularity in the center is ring shaped.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (1)

anubi (640541) | about a year ago | (#44404337)

Yes... is the Universe rotating? Kinda hard to tell if I am in it - it seems no matter where I stand, everything looks like its rotating around me, and I am the center of the Universe. Being everything I observe out there seems to be in some sort of equilibrium between gravitation and centrifugal force, I have to conjecture the Universe is rotating. Its the only thing I can come up with as to why the universe hasn't imploded.

I have seen some data saying the rate of expansion of the Universe is increasing... now that one is a puzzlement to me.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44446155)

Actually no - if everything is rotating there will be a definite axis of rotation. Just like if you're on a merry-go-round you can tell where the center is because it's the thing you're going around and are getting "pulled away from" by "centrifugal force". As far as we can tell the universe has no such center.

More intriguingly, the rate at which distant galaxies are accelerating away from us is proportional to their distance - the further something is from us the faster it's accelerating, which supports the theory that space itself is expanding and carrying the matter along with it, or perhaps that there's an unknown long-range repulsive force that's somehow present in/generated by empty space, or.. well it's very much an area of debate. Physisits call the phenomena "Dark Energy" because while we can see it's effects we can't see it directly and it doesn't act like matter (i.e. generate gravity). Plus we already had the other never-observed-directly fudge factor of "Dark Matter" explaining various other phenomena, so there was a bit of a theme going on.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44398153)

Congratulations! You have thought of the cyclic model [wikipedia.org]
It was mentioned briefly in high school physics.

If you figured it out yourself without help you were probably somewhere among the top 30% creative persons in your class.

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (1)

anubi (640541) | about a year ago | (#44404313)

Interesting.... thanks for the link!

Re:I'd just Brownian Motion (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44399893)

Since space and time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, rotation would have no meaning because rotation is a rate and rates require time.

Re: I'd just Brownian Motion (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44509823)

I like the way you put things, and your obvious humility. Thanks, josephrencser@gmail.com

The very small at the start became very large (1, Interesting)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about a year ago | (#44395255)

Traceries of the strings of string theory? Swirls of other dimensions writ large? Personally I'm looking forward to finding out what these are, for some reason the way the small is now universe wide is fascinating. - HEX

Re:The very small at the start became very large (5, Informative)

slew (2918) | about a year ago | (#44395857)

Short story swirls** have nothing to do with strings, nor dimensions, just vanilla big-bang stuff...

Let's start with what this is.

Basically, cosmic microwave background radiation (aka CMB) is theorized to be weakly linearly polarized due to scattering processes like Thomson Scattering [wikipedia.org] with free-electrons. Since this polarization has 2 net degrees of freedom, you can measure it a few different ways, but one interesting way to do so is to use divergence [wikipedia.org] component (aka E-mode), and curl [wikipedia.org] (aka B-mode) which comes from an analogy with electromagenetics*** So far they've measured some linear polarization with an E-mode component (since it has divergence only, you can think of as being scattered from the position of the last object/electron it interacted with shortly after the big-bang), but until now they've not confident that they measured any net B-mode component in CMB radiation.

E-mode polarization measurements in conjunction with theories about the CMB temperature has helped to advance some theory about some cosmological constants. B-mode measurements are interesting in that if detected are likely from stochastic scattering of a radiation field which is theorized to come from some sort of gravitational waves generated when the early universe was undergoing inflation, but unfortunatly since this is a scattering effect, it could also originate as E-mode and later converted to B-mode by gravitational interaction with matter since the big-bang (a kind of gravitational lensing effect). So B-mode is really small and noisy (which is why they had a hard time isolating it), but it might help us understand if the inflation model is consistent with the universe we see.

**Somehow "curl" [wikipedia.org] gets converted "swirls" in laymanspeak...
***static electric fields (aka 'E' fields) exhibit net divergence from electrical "charges", but static magnetic (aka 'B'**** fields) don't have this because there aren't magnetic monopoles, so they only exhibit net curl (kind of a rotation), but this scattering polarization "mode" really doesn't have too much to do with this (since even polarized electromagnetic radiation has both E-field and B-field components), except for the general mathematical concepts of div and curl.
****Apparently, Maxwell used the letter 'B' (and 'H') to represent magnetic fields when he wrote his Maxell's equations and it stuck. Today, 'M' is commonly used for magnetization (maxwell apparently used 'I' for magnetization and 'C' for current, but now we use 'I' for current so go figure some terminology doesn't stick).

Swirlies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395297)

God gave the Universe a swirly before setting off the Big Bang?

Re:Swirlies? (1)

pollarda (632730) | about a year ago | (#44395463)

Not really.

What they will find is that if they take the patterns created by the gravity waves and decode them as if they were sound waves, they would find it translates to: "Let there be light." (BTW: Just in case, anybody wonders, that will be in English.)

Re:Swirlies? (1)

mcrbids (148650) | about a year ago | (#44395551)

Dunno if you ever noticed, but the "let there be light" happened *before* the sun, stars and planets were created...

Where did that light come from?

Re:Swirlies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395747)

Dunno if you ever noticed, but the "let there be light" happened *before* the sun, stars and planets were created...

Where did that light come from?

Light is photons - and though stars cast off photons as part of their digestive process (among other radiative energy), it's not the only place you can create a photon.

Turns out photons supposedly were the primary energy source in the very, very early universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_epoch

Re:Swirlies? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#44395795)

Dunno if you ever noticed, but the "let there be light" happened *before* the sun, stars and planets were created...

Where did that light come from?

The light was created in transit, to create the image of a universe older than it really is. Thus the stars and stuff could be created later.

The trick was making sure there wasn't an observable glitch when the post-creation light arrived behind the pre-created light.

Re:Swirlies? (1)

Empiric (675968) | about a year ago | (#44396449)

As in Regular Science (TM), light predates all stars and planets.

There's even a convenient name for when it was most prominent, the Photon Epoch [physicsoftheuniverse.com] , starting per physics 3 minutes after the Big Bang.

Re:Swirlies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395579)

Dude, didn't you watch the passion of the christ? It'll totally be in aramaic.

Re:Swirlies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397109)

Or the gravity wave patterns just create an image of Jesus in the heavens.. hallelujah, it's not a toast, it's not a cloud, it's the universe!

Re:Swirlies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395897)

God gave the Universe a swirly before setting off the Big Bang?

More like God gave it a Wedgie.

Re:Swirlies? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44397095)

Told you God was a she

I can't say how it began. (3, Interesting)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44395299)

But it will end not with a bang but with a whimper.

Re:I can't say how it began. (0)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44395413)

Hmmm... offtopic for quoting Eliot, and a fitting passage at that.

I could see a troll mod for quoting Plath or maybe even Poe.

If I had posted something in Klingon about Uranus, it would probably be informative.

Fucking lack of unicode... grumble...

[Uranus] ghajtaH Daj yoD bIng 'ej 'oH poSmoH Daq maj N'yengoren!

Re:I can't say how it began. (3, Interesting)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year ago | (#44396979)

You chose a quote that people who know nothing of poetry other than random quotes would quote, for the smug feeling of knowing something they think is obscure, or even arcane. And in the process contributed nothing. While out of context it may seem to be a prescient summary of the inevitable heat death of the universe, it is actually much more mundane.

Given its popularity, would he write the same words again? No. I've only seen copypasta *from* wikipedia, not the original quote, but I have heard approximations from sources before there was an internet.

One reason is that while the association of the H-bomb is irrelevant to it, it would today come to everyone's mind. Another is that he is not sure the world will end with either. People whose houses were bombed have told him they don't remember hearing anything

Eliot may be less disapproving of a quote in this context, but it still hardly seems appropriate. Refresh your memory [artofeurope.com] if you wish.

swirling swirls afterglow... (0)

niftymitch (1625721) | about a year ago | (#44395307)

swirling swirls afterglow...

Combination of too much tequila and sex?
At least that is what came to mind.

Laugh (1)

koan (80826) | about a year ago | (#44395409)

"and possibly shed light on how it all began" no pun intended.

Geeks already know what these swirls are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395533)

...B-modes spawned by gravity waves that rippled through the infant universe. That observation would give them a direct peek into the cosmos' first fraction of a second and possibly shed light on how it all began.....

Obviously, the swirling of the water in which the pasta noodles were being cooked to create His Noodly Appendages.

What we want to know is, Where are the meatballs?

BAZINGA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395761)

Sheldon is just kidding.

More importantly, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395797)

we're seeing different effects on known matter then, than what we we observe now, it could give evidence to a measurement that either gravity, or matter, or both, have changed over time.

I've always thought static gravity and matter were too simple of explanations for unified theory. At least, on the long-term. Might be irrelevant to my, and your time frames, considering our current state of technological progress, but for continuing physics, and hopes of unification and advanced space travels, dynamic values for gravity and matter might take us in directions we've purposefully avoided because we think we have a 'good grasp of things', mathematically.

Of course, I'm also have the hunch that unification is math incomplete. Not required to be math complete, is it? Who knows...

Remember kids, the Universe is a far stranger place than you think it is.

Re:More importantly, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397125)

we're seeing different effects on known matter then, than what we we observe now, it could give evidence to a measurement that either gravity, or matter, or both, have changed over time.

It could give such evidence, but hasn't really so far, with going back to at least the CMB being on par with basically what would be seen in any other similar plasma. Before the CMB when temperatures get well above what we can see in the a star or the lab is a different matter, and the imprint that could leave on the CMB may be possible to detect, but really subtle.

Eddies, said Ford, in the space-time continuum. (3, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | about a year ago | (#44395847)

Ah, nodded Arthur, is he? Is he?

So... eddies in the space-time continuum? (3, Informative)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a year ago | (#44395931)

"Eddies," said Ford, "in the space-time continuum."

"Ah," nodded Arthur, "is he? Is he?" He pushed his hands into the pocket of his dressing gown and looked knowledgeably into the distance.

"What?" said Ford.

"Er, who," said Arthur, "is Eddy, then, exactly?"

Ford looked angrily at him. "Will you listen?" he snapped.

"I have been listening," said Arthur, "but I'm not sure it's helped."

Ford grasped him by the lapels of his dressing gown and spoke to him as slowly and distinctly and patiently as if he were somebody from a telephone company accounts department. "There seem ..." he said, "to be some pools ..." he said, "of instability ..." he said, "in the fabric ..." he said ...

Arthur looked foolishly at the cloth of his dressing gown where Ford was holding it. Ford swept on before Arthur could turn the foolish look into a foolish remark.

"... in the fabric of space-time," he said.

"Ah, that," said Arthur.

"Yes, that," confirmed Ford.

They stood there alone on a hill on prehistoric Earth and stared each other resolutely in the face.

"And it's done what?" said Arthur.

"It," said Ford, "has developed pools of instability."

"Has it?" said Arthur, his eyes not wavering for a moment.

"It has," said Ford with a similar degree of ocular immobility.

"Good," said Arthur.

"See?" said Ford.

"No," said Arthur.

There was a quiet pause.

"The difficulty with this conversation," said Arthur after a sort of pondering look had crawled slowly across his face like a mountaineer negotiating a tricky outcrop, "is that it's very different from most of the ones I've had of late. Which, as I explained, have mostly been with trees. They weren't like this. Except perhaps some of the ones I've had with elms which sometimes get a bit bogged down."

"Arthur," said Ford.

"Hello? Yes?" said Arthur.

"Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."

"Ah, well I'm not sure I believe that."

They sat down and composed their thoughts.

Ford got out his Sub-Etha Sens-O-Matic. It was making vague humming noises and a tiny light on it was flickering faintly.

"Flat battery?" said Arthur.

"No," said Ford, "there is a moving disturbance in the fabric of space+ time, an eddy, a pool of instability, and it's somewhere in our vicinity."

"Where?"

Ford moved the device in a slow lightly bobbing semi-circle. Suddenly the light flashed.

"There!" said Ford, shooting out his arm. "There, behind that sofa!"

Arthur looked. Much to his surprise, there was a velvet paisley covered Chesterfield sofa in the field in front of them. He boggled intelligently at it. Shrewd questions sprang into his mind.

"Why," he said, "is there a sofa in that field?"

"I told you!" shouted Ford, leaping to his feet. "Eddies in the space-time continuum!"

"And this is his sofa, is it?" asked Arthur, struggling to his feet and, he hoped, though not very optimistically, to his senses.

(from /Life, The Universe and Everything/ by Douglas Adams...as if you didn't know)

Swirls In the Afterglow of the Big Bang Could Set (1)

Don Head (2998319) | about a year ago | (#44396329)

Since we all seem to be guessing about how it all started I would like to put forth my $0.02 worth. Firstly, there was no "Bang", big or little, as there would be no medium for sound to travel through. No flash of light either. No explicit location or time. The stuff of creation was hydrogen because the heavier elements are created in the fusion of stars which comes much later. Hydrogen is about as close to "nothingness" as it gets on the periodic table. Hydrogen can be infinitely compressed. Hydrogen will infinitely expand uniformly in any container regardless of size. I think we are in an infinite hydrogen cycle where black holes reduce every atomic structure above hydrogen back down to the constituents of hydrogen which then is released back into space to form stars, which create heavier elements, which eventually get sucked back into black holes. All of this is driven by one law..."Nature abhors a vacuum".

Re:Swirls In the Afterglow of the Big Bang Could S (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#44396973)

Hydrogen can be infinitely compressed.

Edward Teller would like a word with you.

Re:Swirls In the Afterglow of the Big Bang Could S (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397039)

Hydrogen can be infinitely compressed.

No, it is quite difficult to compress it beyond a certain point without fusion or forming some type of degenerate matter like what would be in a neutron star. The ability to expand infinitely could be done with any other element too.

Re: Swirls In the Afterglow of the Big Bang Could (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397147)

you have no idea how fukin dumb you sound doya?

Re: Swirls In the Afterglow of the Big Bang Could (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397749)

Dude!!! So awesome

sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44396531)

But what's under that turtle ? And why does it matter? Physics is such a 20th century science - discover something useful!

Summary Appears to be Wrong (3, Insightful)

BaldingByMicrosoft (585534) | about a year ago | (#44396561)

From TFA:
"...But first scientists must detect B-modes of any kind. That's what the team with the South Pole Telescope (SPT), a 10-meter dish in Antarctica, has done. B-modes can come from "foreground" radiation from within our galaxy, or when the gravity from the vast web of matter that fills the universe distorts the image of E-modes in the CMB. That distortion is called gravitation lensing, and SPT has observed lensing-induced B-modes..."

It then goes on to basically admit that other teams are better equipped to find actual B-modes in the CMB.

A fine job of pattern-matching, but not what is advertised.

shed light on how it all began." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397187)

That observation would give them a direct peek into the cosmos' first fraction of a second and possibly shed light on how it all began."
With Noodles, Spaghetti sauce and some meatballs.

Quick! Call the Order of the Stick! (1)

MPAB (1074440) | about a year ago | (#44397975)

The Snarl is showing! Must find the gates!

Out Universe was created by an Intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44399303)

Life cycle of the Universe:

Universe is born, Intelligence evolves in Universe, Intelligence figures out science, asks, "Why am I here", then goes on to create giant particle accelerators to find out, eventually grows to a type IV 4 civilization, Uses Massively Giant particle accelerators to create multiple pocket universe where they fiddle witht he input parameters to create one that matches or improve upon the initial conditions of their own universe, A universe is born, Intelligence evolves in Universe, Intelligence figures out science, asks, "Why am I here", then goes on to create giant particle accelerators to find out, eventually grows to a type IV 4 civilization, Uses Massively Giant particle accelerators to create multiple pocket universe where they fiddle witht he input parameters to create one that matches or improve upon the initial conditions of their own universe, A universe is born, Intelligence evolves in Universe, Intelligence figures out science, asks, "Why am I here", then goes on to create giant particle accelerators to find out, eventually grows to a type IV 4 civilization, Uses Massively Giant particle accelerators to create multiple pocket universe where they fiddle witht he input parameters to create one that matches or improve upon the initial conditions of their own universe, A universe is born, Humans come into being, the Multiverse craps a collective brick....

It is baby Universes all the way down..........

Much like Turtles and Elephants only with inflationary universes....

Whatever "gravity" is ... (1)

yusing (216625) | about a year ago | (#44403573)

For how many more generations -- in the complete absense of -any- result from -any- gravity-wave detector -- will people continue to hold onto the concept?

We finally let go of instantaneous-action-at-a-distance some time ago. But we continue to make ineffable mystical inferences from our love of simpifying mathematics. Occam-pretty models aside, there is zero evidence that gravity is wavelike or particle-like in any way. Suggesting that it is an emergent quantum property. Whatever we see that appears to "curve space" that photons travel through, the Newtonian "gravity" model has failed utterly. It's just waiting for someone too unorthodox to stay inside the box to sweep aside generations of stubborn clinging.

Re:Whatever "gravity" is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44404125)

Occam-pretty models aside, there is zero evidence that gravity is wavelike or particle-like in any way.

Zero evidence if you don't count that the rest of GR has held up pretty well, and ignore that predictions for energy radiated by gravity waves from compact binaries matches orbital decay observations quite well. Although that you view this is some sort of wave vs. particle issues suggest you might be missing something fundamental on the topic. The issue of wave vs. particle didn't mean wave solutions to Maxwell's equations were not detectable.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>