• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Scientists observe gravitational waves from the Big Bang for the first time

Status
Not open for further replies.

Septimius

Junior Member
Unless of course God set it in motion 6000 years ago but made it look like it had been around for billions of years. He can do that, ya know

Yes, but now you're confusing what time is. Just like you can restore a save-state in a SNES emulator, doesn't mean you can disregard that everything had to happen up to that point.

The idea you present is called Omphalism. It would be a cruel joke to play, or it might be a functional way to start things. However, just like a game starts existing when you start playing it, the background story and what you did last time is 'real' to the game's world. There is no difference between starting the universe at a Omphalistic point and starting it at an early point, as the idea has to exist. As such, there is no point to assume it didn't start at The Big Bang, since what we're looking for is an explanation to how things came to be, and not if we can prove it's not just a veil drawn over our eyes. The Big Bang is what lead us here, no matter if a "god" created it last Thursday or not.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Yes, but now you're confusing what time is. Just like you can restore a save-state in a SNES emulator, doesn't mean you can disregard that everything had to happen up to that point.

The idea you present is called Omphalism. It would be a cruel joke to play, or it might be a functional way to start things. However, just like a game starts existing when you start playing it, the background story and what you did last time is 'real' to the game's world. There is no difference between starting the universe at a Omphalistic point and starting it at an early point, as the idea has to exist. As such, there is no point to assume it didn't start at The Big Bang, since what we're looking for is an explanation to how things came to be, and not if we can prove it's not just a veil drawn over our eyes. The Big Bang is what lead us here, no matter if a "god" created it last Thursday or not.
Maybe God actually made reality two minutes ago but made it seem like he made it 6000 years ago but made it seem like he made it billions of years ago
 

danwarb

Member
Maybe God actually made reality two minutes ago but made it seem like he made it 6000 years ago but made it seem like he made it billions of years ago

But these gods would be total shits and rightly despised. God made up all o' that original sin guff two minutes ago, lol, soz humies.
 

Septimius

Junior Member
But these gods would be total shits and rightly despised. God made up all o' that original sin guff two minutes ago, lol, soz humies.

What does it matter? You can't tell that you didn't experience all the stuff you thought you did yesterday, anyway, and it feels exactly the way it should as if you actually did experience it.

It's when you get into that that you realize why there's only the now.
 

danwarb

Member
What does it matter? You can't tell that you didn't experience all the stuff you thought you did yesterday, anyway, and it feels exactly the way it should as if you actually did experience it.

It's when you get into that that you realize why there's only the now.

People would be facing prejudice and injustice and loss over things that God made up 2 minutes ago. They'd be praying for forgiveness for things god made up 2 minutes ago. I doubt the prison population would find it funny, if God let on that he was just messing with them.
 

G.ZZZ

Member
People would be facing prejudice and injustice and loss over things that God made up 2 minutes ago. They'd be praying for forgiveness for things god made up 2 minutes ago. I doubt the prison population would find it funny, if God let on that he was just messing with them.

The point is that there's absolutely no way to tell the difference. Even if you were constantly disintegrated and recreated every single second, alongside with the whole universe. The point is that the past is chosen because it's consistent with the present. Even if the "real" past were to not be real, it would still be "real" to this present.

Too hard for me.
 

Septimius

Junior Member
The point is that there's absolutely no way to tell the difference. Even if you were constantly disintegrated and recreated every single second, alongside with the whole universe. The point is that the past is chosen because it's consistent with the present. Even if the "real" past were to not be real, it would still be "real" to this present.

Too hard for me.

Every moment the universe spontaneously exists.
 

danwarb

Member
The point is that there's absolutely no way to tell the difference. Even if you were constantly disintegrated and recreated every single second, alongside with the whole universe. The point is that the past is chosen because it's consistent with the present. Even if the "real" past were to not be real, it would still be "real" to this present.

Too hard for me.

Sure, it's only the idea of a God to be worshiped doing that with some purpose that's hideous.
 

Septimius

Junior Member
Sure, it's only the idea of a God to be worshiped doing that with some purpose that's hideous.

Well, the judeo-christian God killed a man that did not impregnate his brother's wife, after God slayed his brother 'for he was wicked the eyes of the Lord', and his dad told him to be a good brother-in-law and sleep with her. (Genesis 38:8)

This seems a better alternative, really.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
I'm just hopeful we'll figure a way of this planet within a billion years. Actually, I don't care. My hopes won't matter by then or by the end of this century.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
The whole "Was it spawned into existence to look like it was older?" is an untestable claim on the same level as "Are we actually in the Matrix?" or "Are we just dreaming butterflies?" Maybe it's food for thought, but not something that's particularly useful to think about.
 
So when they calculate how old the big bang is, do they account for the speed of the explosion in regards to time? Um, what I think I mean is since time changes in regards to how close things travel to the speed of light wouldn't the force of the big bang alter the actual time it actually took to create the universe? Or am I just thinking about this all wrong.
 
So when they calculate how old the big bang is, do they account for the speed of the explosion in regards to time? Um, what I think I mean is since time changes in regards to how close things travel to the speed of light wouldn't the force of the big bang alter the actual time it actually took to create the universe? Or am I just thinking about this all wrong.

Well, yeah, from an outside observer point of view. But as we just found out, there is no outside observer. And maybe not an outside to be observed from.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
What happens if you push two particles against one another to the point where it would cause their motion to stop? Or would they not stop for some reason? Seems to me that if there is a lot of matter condensed, the interior one will risk coming to a halt, and if it did wouldn't it disappear out of existence?

If the later is possible, I wonder if the big bang is not just such a force, inverted; like two equal forces being pushed against one another, the only way to avoid a stalemate would be to move them away from one another in an instant. If you did that with a lot of matter, it would probably result in an explosion, like releasing a car that was running its wheels at full speed but being held.

So maybe what happens is when a critical amount of matter is collapsed with itself to the point where it is about to cancel itself out of existence, the force is just reversed.
 

KarmaCow

Member
What happens if you push two particles against one another to the point where it would cause their motion to stop? Or would they not stop for some reason? Seems to me that if there is a lot of matter condensed, the interior one will risk coming to a halt, and if it did wouldn't it disappear out of existence?

If the later is possible, I wonder if the big bang is not just such a force, inverted; like two equal forces being pushed against one another, the only way to avoid a stalemate would be to move them away from one another in an instant. If you did that with a lot of matter, it would probably result in an explosion, like releasing a car that was running its wheels at full speed but being held.

So maybe what happens is when a critical amount of matter is collapsed with itself to the point where it is about to cancel itself out of existence, the force is just reversed.

Do you mean something different from a blackhole, it sounds like you're talking about what happens when a massive star dies. A blackhole is essentially the point where nothing can stop the force of gravity crushing everything to a point. A star's entire life is the fight against gravity be it through gas pressure, radiation from the fusion within the core to electron and neutron degeneracy pressure. The last stages, where electron or neutron degeneracy pressure are fighting back against gravity is what you're talking about, where in a simplified way, two particles are resisting being pushed into the same point/state.

I don't think there isn't conclusive knowledge about what exactly a black hole is though. It's the breakdown of physics as we know it and by its nature inscrutable.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
MIT published an interview with Alan Guth, the first person to propose the idea of cosmic inflation, about the discovery of gravitational waves. According to Guth:

"The significance of these new findings is enormous. First of all, they help tremendously in confirming the picture of inflation. As far as we know, there is nothing other than inflation that can produce these gravity waves. Second, it tells us a lot about the details of inflation that we did not already know. In particular, it determines the energy density of the universe at the time of inflation, which is something that previously had a wide range of possibilities.

By determining the energy density of the universe at the time of inflation, the new result also tells us a lot about which detailed versions of inflation are still viable, and which are no longer viable. The current result is not by itself conclusive, but it points in the direction of the very simplest inflationary models that can be constructed.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the new result is not the final story, but is more like the opening of a new window. Now that these B modes have been found, the BICEP2 collaboration and many other groups will continue to study them. They provide a new tool to study the behavior of the early universe, including the process of inflation.

When I (and others) started working on the effect of quantum fluctuations in the early 1980s, I never thought that anybody would ever be able to measure these effects. To me it was really just a game, to see if my colleagues and I could agree on what the fluctuations would theoretically look like. So I am just astounded by the progress that astronomers have made in measuring these minute effects, and particularly by the new result of the BICEP2 team. Like all experimental results, we should wait for it to be confirmed by other groups before taking it as truth, but the group seems to have been very careful, and the result is very clean, so I think it is very likely that it will hold up."
 

N.Domixis

Banned
What makes me wonder is how EVERY SINGLE existence that has ever existed started. For example, if the Big Bang was caused by event 1, then there had to have been an event 2 that caused event 1. And there had to have been an event 3 to make event 2 take place and an event 4 that made event 3 happen and so on and so on, eventually becoming infinite and never having a true beginning to every existence before our universe?

Another thing that I am curious about is what would happen if a universe was infinite in size and infinite in time. Then there would be infinite matter and energy to combine in infinitely many combinations down to that smallest unit of this universe. Would every single possible event be happening infinitely many times across the infinite universe? Would that mean there would be an infinite amount of exact copies of our part of the universe all happening at the exact instant in time in some far away section of this infinite universe? And since this universe will have an eternal existence then all events will occur infinitely more times in the future and at the same time, all other alternate outcomes that could happen, are happening all at the same time. Or since this hypothetical universe is infinitely big and eternal, nothing would ever repeat since there would be infinite amount of ways matter and energy could rearrange in an infinite space time.
I'm so confused...
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Do you mean something different from a blackhole, it sounds like you're talking about what happens when a massive star dies. A blackhole is essentially the point where nothing can stop the force of gravity crushing everything to a point. A star's entire life is the fight against gravity be it through gas pressure, radiation from the fusion within the core to electron and neutron degeneracy pressure. The last stages, where electron or neutron degeneracy pressure are fighting back against gravity is what you're talking about, where in a simplified way, two particles are resisting being pushed into the same point/state.

I don't think there isn't conclusive knowledge about what exactly a black hole is though. It's the breakdown of physics as we know it and by its nature inscrutable.

But what happens if the pressure reached an extreme? When particles resist being pushed against one another, isn't something going to slow down in their internal "structure" as a result? I'm wondering if there can be a point where the pressure is so much that the resistance causes the forces that are at the core of particles to stop completely as a result of increased resistance against one another, like cancelling each other out.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
But what happens if the pressure reached an extreme? When particles resist being pushed against one another, isn't something going to slow down in their internal "structure" as a result? I'm wondering if there can be a point where the pressure is so much that the resistance causes the forces that are at the core of particles to stop completely as a result of increased resistance against one another, like cancelling each other out.

No, particles never completely stop ever, all particles have a degree of internal energy. At best you get very very restricted vibrations. This is what Zero-Point Energy is, by the way, the absolute minimum amount of energy possible in a system at the "zero point"
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
No, particles never completely stop ever, all particles have a degree of internal energy. At best you get very very restricted vibrations. This is what Zero-Point Energy is, by the way, the absolute minimum amount of energy possible in a system at the "zero point"

Interesting, but can it really never stop? You'd think with enough pressure it could.

/goes to wikipedia zero point page
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Interesting, but can it really never stop? You'd think with enough pressure it could.

/goes to wikipedia zero point page

Nope, it is impossible to have something with literally zero energy. At a fundamental level all of reality, even the fabric of spacetime, is fluctuating. Nothing is static. The closest you'll get to what you're describing is a Neutron Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star), which are, incidentally, totally badass
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Ah, ok, I thought the question was just what happens when you put a system into an absolute extreme state of pressure with particles with low thermal motion, presumably to make them stop. To that the answer is a black hole.

Now, as for what exactly happens with one, you're right, we're not exactly sure. One of the problems is that electron and neutron degeneracy pressure are already related to the available quantum ground states of a system, so that barrier wouldn't apply, and the Coulombic barrier is long gone. Presumably there's nothing more stopping that mass from contracting into a single point. What happens then? *shrug*

Certainly under more normal conditions where you're just trying to get thermal motion in a substance to stop, then you run into Heisenberg uncertainty where there's a limit on how much you can confine the energy of those particles. You can get really close to 0 K, but you can never truly reach it.

As for what Ether Snake is talking about exactly, I suggest looking up "white holes".
 
Interesting, but can it really never stop? You'd think with enough pressure it could.

/goes to wikipedia zero point page

What you are thinking of being a particle may be more like a collection of waves. It's much more difficult to imagine applying pressure to them to make them stop moving...
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Ah, ok, I thought the question was just what happens when you put a system into an absolute extreme state of pressure with particles with low thermal motion, presumably to make them stop. To that the answer is a black hole.

Now, as for what exactly happens with one, you're right, we're not exactly sure. One of the problems is that electron and neutron degeneracy pressure are already related to the available quantum ground states of a system, so that barrier wouldn't apply, and the Coulombic barrier is long gone. Presumably there's nothing more stopping that mass from contracting into a single point. What happens then? *shrug*

Certainly under more normal conditions where you're just trying to get thermal motion in a substance to stop, then you run into Heisenberg uncertainty where there's a limit on how much you can confine the energy of those particles. You can get really close to 0 K, but you can never truly reach it.

As for what Ether Snake is talking about exactly, I suggest looking up "white holes".

This is basically what I'm getting at: no particle ever "stops"
 

Nelo Ice

Banned
What makes me wonder is how EVERY SINGLE existence that has ever existed started. For example, if the Big Bang was caused by event 1, then there had to have been an event 2 that caused event 1. And there had to have been an event 3 to make event 2 take place and an event 4 that made event 3 happen and so on and so on, eventually becoming infinite and never having a true beginning to every existence before our universe?

Another thing that I am curious about is what would happen if a universe was infinite in size and infinite in time. Then there would be infinite matter and energy to combine in infinitely many combinations down to that smallest unit of this universe. Would every single possible event be happening infinitely many times across the infinite universe? Would that mean there would be an infinite amount of exact copies of our part of the universe all happening at the exact instant in time in some far away section of this infinite universe? And since this universe will have an eternal existence then all events will occur infinitely more times in the future and at the same time, all other alternate outcomes that could happen, are happening all at the same time. Or since this hypothetical universe is infinitely big and eternal, nothing would ever repeat since there would be infinite amount of ways matter and energy could rearrange in an infinite space time.
I'm so confused...
Same here man I hate that this enters my head every day too. It's like 13.7 billion years have passed and we show up then in an instant I become aware. Then it's like how the hell did any of this happen!?.
 
MIT published an interview with Alan Guth, the first person to propose the idea of cosmic inflation, about the discovery of gravitational waves.

I loved this part, especially the bolded:

Q: Can you explain the theory of cosmic inflation that you first put forth in 1980?

A: I usually describe inflation as a theory of the “bang” of the Big Bang: It describes the propulsion mechanism that drove the universe into the period of tremendous expansion that we call the Big Bang. In its original form, the Big Bang theory never was a theory of the bang. It said nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged.

The original Big Bang theory was really a theory of the aftermath of the bang. The universe was already hot and dense, and already expanding at a fantastic rate. The theory described how the universe was cooled by the expansion, and how the expansion was slowed by the attractive force of gravity.

Inflation proposes that the expansion of the universe was driven by a repulsive form of gravity. According to Newton, gravity is a purely attractive force, but this changed with Einstein and the discovery of general relativity. General relativity describes gravity as a distortion of spacetime, and allows for the possibility of repulsive gravity.

Modern particle theories strongly suggest that at very high energies, there should exist forms of matter that create repulsive gravity.
Inflation, in turn, proposes that at least a very small patch of the early universe was filled with this repulsive-gravity material. The initial patch could have been incredibly small, perhaps as small as 10-24 centimeter, about 100 billion times smaller than a single proton. The small patch would then start to exponentially expand under the influence of the repulsive gravity, doubling in size approximately every 10-37 second. To successfully describe our visible universe, the region would need to undergo at least 80 doublings, increasing its size to about 1 centimeter. It could have undergone significantly more doublings, but at least this number is needed.

During the period of exponential expansion, any ordinary material would thin out, with the density diminishing to almost nothing. The behavior in this case, however, is very different: The repulsive-gravity material actually maintains a constant density as it expands, no matter how much it expands! While this appears to be a blatant violation of the principle of the conservation of energy, it is actually perfectly consistent.

This loophole hinges on a peculiar feature of gravity: The energy of a gravitational field is negative. As the patch expands at constant density, more and more energy, in the form of matter, is created. But at the same time, more and more negative energy appears in the form of the gravitational field that is filling the region. The total energy remains constant, as it must, and therefore remains very small.

It is possible that the total energy of the entire universe is exactly zero, with the positive energy of matter completely canceled by the negative energy of gravity. I often say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch, since it actually requires no energy to produce a universe.

At some point the inflation ends because the repulsive-gravity material becomes metastable. The repulsive-gravity material decays into ordinary particles, producing a very hot soup of particles that form the starting point of the conventional Big Bang. At this point the repulsive gravity turns off, but the region continues to expand in a coasting pattern for billions of years to come. Thus, inflation is a prequel to the era that cosmologists call the Big Bang, although it of course occurred after the origin of the universe, which is often also called the Big Bang.

I had never heard of "repulsive gravity" before, and it's surprising because I always seek cosmology and physics info and I've heard about Inflation and General Relativity numerous times (in reading, videos, documentaries, etc) but I don't recall coming across this before, but it makes sense; if gravity can be pictured as a dip in the fabric of spacetime, then a curvature in the opposite direction (picture a flat sheet being pushed up from below) would make objects slide away from it than towards it. Super cool.
 

Prologue

Member
Anyway that the big bang was actually intentional? A last ditch effort to hit the reset button to completely eliminate a terrible threat?


I'm reading too much science fiction.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
I loved this part, especially the bolded:



I had never heard of "repulsive gravity" before, and it's surprising because I always seek cosmology and physics info and I've heard about Inflation and General Relativity numerous times (in reading, videos, documentaries, etc) but I don't recall coming across this before, but it makes sense; if gravity can be pictured as a dip in the fabric of spacetime, then a curvature in the opposite direction (picture a flat sheet being pushed up from below) would make objects slide away from it than towards it. Super cool.
As far as I understand it, the repulsive gravity effect is a very specific condition of the early universe, which at the time was a small and extremely dense cauldron of energy. Shortly after the Big Bang, the universe became trapped in something called a "false vacuum" state (which essentially means that it's not a true vacuum). The false vacuum state has a huge amount of negative pressure, and it's this characteristic that's responsible for the repulsive gravitational field that drives the expansion of the universe. Eventually, as the false vacuum decays, the universe stops rapidly inflating and enters into a phase of "normal" growth.
 

Kimosabae

Banned
Hmm... sounds a bit like some political science amirite????

Good. That's how science works.

Occasionally it strengthens a theory.

Robert Milikan won the Nobel Prize by proving the implications of Enstein's photoelectric papers right (the particle nature of light) - despite being a vanguard antagonist to his view.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Hmm... sounds a bit like some political science amirite????



Robert Milikan won the Nobel Prize by proving the implications of Enstein's photoelectric papers right (the particle nature of light) - despite being a vanguard antagonist to his view.


Yup. It's often the most egoless discoveries that are the most important.

Clarke or Asimov once said something like, "the greatest scientific discoveries are not met with a EUREKA, but a "hmm, that's odd..."
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
What you are thinking of being a particle may be more like a collection of waves. It's much more difficult to imagine applying pressure to them to make them stop moving...

Isn't a wave only an arbitrary description of a collection of positions? How can something be "a wave" when a wave can only be considered a wave when looked at in relation to the state of a whole of things?

So a wave is a wave of things, in that case it goes back to the point that they are made of individual particles with positions.
 
Isn't a wave only an arbitrary description of a collection of positions? How can something be "a wave" when a wave can only be considered a wave when looked at in relation to the state of a whole of things?

So a wave is a wave of things, in that case it goes back to the point that they are made of individual particles with positions.

Or maybe particle is just an illusion as we try to make sense of sub-atomic world by giving it properties that exist in our own world. Quantum mechanics basically says that sub-atomic particles do not exist, and what we call sub-atomic particles are just quantised waves of electromagnetic energy.
 

Joe

Member
party's over, the analysis was flawed.

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

The BICEP2 team identified a twisty (B-mode) pattern in its maps of polarization of the cosmic microwave background, concluding that this was a detection of primordial gravitational waves. Now, serious flaws in the analysis have been revealed that transform the sure detection into no detection. The search for gravitational waves must begin anew. The problem is that other effects, including light scattering from dust and the synchrotron radiation generated by electrons moving around galactic magnetic fields within our own Galaxy, can also produce these twists.

back to the drawing board
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom