WMAP team releases final results, based on nine years of observations

Dec 21, 2012

(Phys.org)—Since its launch in 2001, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) space mission has revolutionized our view of the universe, establishing a cosmological model that explains a widely diverse collection of astronomical observations. Led by Johns Hopkins astrophysicist Charles L. Bennett, the WMAP science team has determined, to a high degree of accuracy and precision, not only the age of the universe, but also the density of atoms; the density of all other non-atomic matter; the epoch when the first stars started to shine; the "lumpiness" of the universe, and how that "lumpiness" depends on scale size.

In short, when used alone (with no other measurements), WMAP observations have made our knowledge of those six parameters above about 68,000 times more precise, thereby converting cosmology from a field of often wild speculation to a precision science.

Now, two years after the probe "retired," Bennett and the WMAP science team are releasing its final results, based on a full nine years of observations.

"It is almost miraculous, says Bennett, Alumni Centennial Professor of Physics and Astronomy and Johns Hopkins Gilman Scholar at the Johns Hopkins University's Krieger School of Arts and Sciences. "The encoded its autobiography in the microwave patterns we observe across the whole sky. When we decoded it, the universe revealed its history and contents. It is stunning to see everything fall into place."

WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years. The patterns in this baby picture were used to limit what could have possibly happened earlier, and what happened in the billions of year since that early time. The (mis-named) "big bang" framework of cosmology, which posits that the young universe was hot and dense, and has been expanding and cooling ever since, is now solidly supported, according to WMAP.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
A video of Bennett discussing WMAP results

WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.

Remarkably, WMAP's precision measurement of the properties of the fluctuations has confirmed specific predictions of the simplest version of inflation: the fluctuations follow a bell curve with the same properties across the sky, and there are equal numbers of hot and cold spots on the map. WMAP also confirms the predictions that the amplitude of the variations in the density of the universe on big scales should be slightly larger than smaller scales, and that the universe should obey the rules of Euclidean geometry so the sum of the interior angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees.

Recently, Stephen Hawking commented in New Scientist that WMAP's evidence for inflation was the most exciting development in physics during his career.

The universe comprises only 4.6 percent atoms. A much greater fraction, 24 percent of the universe, is a different kind of matter that has gravity but does not emit any light—called "dark matter". The biggest fraction of the current composition of the universe, 71%, is a source of anti-gravity (sometimes called "dark energy") that is driving an acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

"WMAP observations form the cornerstone of the standard model of cosmology, "says Gary F. Hinshaw of the University of British Columbia, who is part of the WMAP science team. "Other data are consistent and when combined we now know precise values for the history, composition, and geometry of the universe."

WMAP has also provided the timing of epoch when the first stars began to shine, when the universe was about 400 million old. The upcoming James Webb Space Telescope is specifically designed to study that period that has added its signature to the WMAP observations.

WMAP launched on June 30, 2001 and maneuvered to its observing station near the "second Lagrange point" of the Earth-Sun system, a million miles from Earth in the direction opposite the sun. From there, WMAP scanned the heavens, mapping out tiny temperature fluctuations across the full sky. The first results were issued in February 2003, with major updates in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and now this final release. The mission was selected by NASA in 1996, the result of an open competition held in 1995. It was confirmed for development in 1997 and was built and ready for launch only four years later, on-schedule and on-budget.

"The last word from WMAP marks the end of the beginning in our quest to understand the Universe," comments fellow Johns Hopkins Adam G. Riess, whose discovery of dark energy led him to share the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics. "WMAP has brought precision to cosmology and the Universe will never be the same."

Explore further: What does the next generation telescope need to detect life?

More information: Bennett's webpage: cosmos.pha.jhu.edu/bennett/

Hinshaw's webpage: www.phas.ubc.ca/users/gary-hinshaw

Hawking on WMAP: www.newscientist.com/article/m… osmic-inflation.html

Related Stories

Durham astronomers' doubts about the 'dark side'

Jun 14, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- New research by astronomers in the Physics Department at Durham University suggests that the conventional wisdom about the content of the Universe may be wrong. Graduate student Utane Sawangwit ...

Flat universe

Oct 17, 2011

A remarkable finding of the early 21st century, that kind of sits alongside the Nobel prize winning discovery of the universe’s accelerating expansion, is the finding that the universe is geometrically ...

NASA to Probe the Universe's First Moments

Apr 29, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sophisticated new technologies created by NASA and university scientists are enabling them to build an instrument designed to probe the first moments of the universe's existence.

No evidence for 'knots' in space

Jun 13, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Theories of the primordial Universe predict the existence of knots in the fabric of space - known as cosmic textures - which could be identified by looking at light from the cosmic microwave ...

Recommended for you

New window on the early Universe

22 hours ago

Scientists at the Universities of Bonn and Cardiff see good times approaching for astrophysicists after hatching a new observational strategy to distill detailed information from galaxies at the edge of ...

Chandra's archives come to life

Oct 22, 2014

Every year, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory looks at hundreds of objects throughout space to help expand our understanding of the Universe. Ultimately, these data are stored in the Chandra Data Archive, ...

New robotic telescope revolutionizes the study of stars

Oct 22, 2014

In the last 8 months a fully robotic telescope in Tenerife has been carrying out high-precision observations of the motion of stellar surfaces. The telescope is the first in the SONG telescope network and ...

User comments : 74

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (24) Dec 21, 2012
WMAP is some of the best spent science dollars ever. Kuddo's
jsdarkdestruction
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2012
I wonder why electric universe cant explain the cosmic microwave background so well or use it to verify previous predictions..... hmmmm, maybe its time to stop beating that dead horse cantdrive/hannes?
GSwift7
3 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2012
The biggest fraction of the current composition of the universe, 71%, is a source of anti-gravity


I wonder if they will figure that one out in my lifetime. The idea of negative mass or negative energy is a bit hard to imagine. And don't even try to suggest anti-matter, because we already know that anti-matter has positive mass/energy.

I guess the other option besides negative mass/energy would be negative time. That would reverse the effect of gravity. I need some time to think about the effects that might have on observations.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (18) Dec 21, 2012
I wonder why electric universe cant explain the cosmic microwave background so well or use it to verify previous predictions..... hmmmm, maybe its time to stop beating that dead horse cantdrive/hannes?


Making precise predictions, going out to test the predictions, retesting the predictions, and find independent methods to further test the predictions,,,,

OR

Make predictions (It's all electric plasma!), fail in the predictions. Re-predict your predictions (It's all electric plasma!), fail to test your predictions because you have changed your predictions to: It's all electric plasma! And those other guys predictions are only true because of electric plasma!
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2012
I wonder if they will figure that one out in my lifetime. The idea of negative mass or negative energy is a bit hard to imagine.


Learning modern physics has been challenging to me when learning how to imagine the counter-intuitive principles,,, but the most challenging by far has been with "dark energy".

I hope it is modeled with some certainty in my life time,,,, it would be nice to have several well slept nights in a row at some point.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2012
Oh, I was thinking about the negative time thing, and it occurred to me that the opposite of a black hole, where time slows down such that nothing can escape, would be a 'white hole', where time speeds up to the point that nothing could enter.

So I guess it wouldn't be negative time, but rather time distortion in the opposite direction of that caused by gravity, so faster time. Faster time would produce anti-gravity, not negative time, or rather a field where time speeds up towards the center of something. A singularity of infinitely sped up time would be a place where nothing could go. It should be like a perfect mirror at the event horizon, or like a perfect cloaking device.
Pressure2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2012
Quote from article: "WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies."

Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2012
Quote from article: "WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies."



Ah,,,,, yeah, that is indeed what it said.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2012
Quote from article: "WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies."



Ah,,,,, yeah, that is indeed what it said.

And that was what I said in this link:
http://phys.org/n...mic.html

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 21, 2012
I wonder why electric universe cant explain the cosmic microwave background. hmmmm, maybe its time to stop beating that dead horse cantdrive/hannes?


Or not...
As author and EU theorist Wal Thornhill points out:

"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify? The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation - as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe."
Q-Star
3 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2012
And that was what I said in this link:
http://phys.org/n...mic.html


Maybe,,,, maybe not. Your conversation seems rather circular. What point are you trying to make now? That you can snip/glue a quote from the article? Or that the authors of the article plagiarized your work?

I'm sorry, but unfortunately, I'm one of those people who reads only blank spaces between the lines, I don't see what you're getting at.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 21, 2012
Or not...
As author and EU theorist Wal Thornhill points out:


Mostly he points to being mentally ill.

"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?


If Arp were right, more people would talking about his model of the universe. But it seems as if the so called "hot big bang / cold inflation" is very much alive and well,,, thriving even.

I bet you wish the EU/PC theory was as dead as the big bang.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2012
And that was what I said in this link:
http://phys.org/n...mic.html


Maybe,,,, maybe not. Your conversation seems rather circular. What point are you trying to make now? That you can snip/glue a quote from the article? Or that the authors of the article plagiarized your work?

I'm sorry, but unfortunately, I'm one of those people who reads only blank spaces between the lines, I don't see what you're getting at.

Plagiarized, no not at all, in fact I quoted WMAP in one of my comments in that link about the size and time period of the "inflationary period". There was a lengthy discussion on the inflationary period in that link with some claiming the inflationary period only expanded the universe to the size of a grapefruit, I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2012
I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.


It could be as you say, or it may not be. Seeing as how limited our knowledge of the "initial conditions" just prior to inflation, it's a very open question. If you a priori assume a beginning volume then the result will depend only on your assumption. At some point you have to defend your a priori assumptions.
Kron
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2012
don't even try to suggest anti-matter, because we already know that anti-matter has positive mass/energy.

Thats news to me. Mind providing a source for this? I thought there was no way currently of testing the gravitational effects of matter on antimatter. All the antimatter created in accelerators is kept under electromagnetic confinement. Gravity is so weak when compared to the other forces, how exactly did they test how an antiproton reacts in a matter dominant gravitational field?
frajo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2012
"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?

If Arp were right, more people would talking about his model of the universe.
That's quite convincing - as nobody was talking about the heliocentric model of Aristarchos o Samios the Ptolemaic system had to be correct for more than 1000 years.
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2012
I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.


It could be as you say, or it may not be. Seeing as how limited our knowledge of the "initial conditions" just prior to inflation, it's a very open question. If you a priori assume a beginning volume then the result will depend only on your assumption. At some point you have to defend your a priori assumptions.

I am not referring to the time prior to the inflationary period. I am saying that the inflationary period had to have expanded the universe to at least the size of the visible universe today. The reason is we are seeing things as they were as far back in time as we can see, as they were 13 plus billion years ago.
Widdekind
1 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2012
WMAP has brought precision... and the Universe will never be the same

inflation?
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.


Uh huh. What happened to "the laws of physics re the same for every observer" and "the laws of physics don't change"?

If the laws of physics can change, then all of history and cosmology are vain endeavors because you can't actually prove when a change occurred. One day you people will get that.

The biggest fraction of the current composition of the universe, 71%, is a source of anti-gravity (sometimes called "dark energy") that is driving an acceleration of the expansion of the universe.


As it is described in books, encyclopedias, and science papers, Dark Energy is most certainly NOT "anti-gravity". The claim is that Dark Energy allegedly causes the expansion of "space-time". Gravity allegedly causes proper motion of matter through space-time, which is entirely unrelated.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
However, the claim that space-time is expanding is currently un-provable, because the Doppler effect cannot distinguish one form of shift from another, so that you can't actually prove galaxies are "expanding" away, rather than simply "proper moving" away.

Anyway, if General Relativity is true, then "Dark Energy" is NOT energy, and it is not gravity.

Dark Energy is not energy at all, and if it actually is causing expansion of space and time, it would have units of m^3*s/s/s.

Which looks redundant and you may say it should be "m^3/s" or m^3/s/s, but that would be wrong (if general relativity is right,) because DE allegedly expands space-time.

So a rate of change in the "volume" of space-time is m^3*s/s.

A rate of change in the rate of change in the "volume" of space-time is m^3*s/s/s.

Neither of these is gravitational acceleration, which is m/s/s.

However, to be serious, gravitational acceleration was derived in a linear model, and so it's units may be a fallacy in 3d or 4d world
frajo
not rated yet Dec 22, 2012
"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?

If Arp were right, more people would talking about his model of the universe.
That's quite convincing - as nobody was talking about the heliocentric model of Aristarchos o Samios the Ptolemaic system had to be correct for more than 1000 years.

Sometimes it is rewarding to have a look at who's trying to value one's comment and thereby disclosing the nilpotency of his evaluation assets.

It's ok. Not everybody knows that "Simplicissimus" was a satirical magazine. Certainly not people who choose nicks like "jsdarkdestruction" and "PosterusNeticus".
Kron
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
frajo, the rating system should only be accessible to those educated in the field in question. Unfortunately, as it stands, the rating system is merely a popularity contest. I like to tease lite about his serial rating, but he is too cowardly to respond. There are many more rating sockpuppets on this site, I'm guessing they're probably the creation of some old disgraced commenters out on a vendetta. There is really no point in worrying about the ratings of the comments at all. If what you're saying is incorrect, someone knowledgable will actually respond back to correct you. Otherwise, the rating is meaningless, I mean what system is in place to qualify the raters? None.

As for lite, NOM, and the like: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt," eh?
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2012
The whole CMBR based support of Big Bang cosmology is a nifty example of circular reasoning, because the existence of CMBR is explained like the consequence of expansion of photon wavelength during its aging - well, and the age of Universe is derived from wavelength of CMBR photons expanded. In AWT the Universe is steady-state and the red shift is the consequence of light scattering with density fluctuations of vacuum in similar way, like the changes of wavelength of ripples during their spreading along water surface. This simple model can be falsified experimentally, because it leads into prediction, that the speed of Universe expansion is wavelength dependent in similar way, like the scattering of ripples at the water surface. It means, when being observed in radiowaves, then our Universe would appear collapsing instead, which can be checked both with blue shift, both with positive violation of ISL.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2012
The blue shift of radiowave sources was observed with Pioneer masers, which serve as a reliable wavelength reference source. The violation of inverse square law was detected during ARCADE-2 observation of distant radiowave sources. In accordance with it the astronomers observed, that the distant galaxies are shrinking in size instead of expanding. From the above model follows, that in CMBR wavelengths the scattering effects (dark matter, dark energy, Sachs-Wolf effects) should disappear from our universe and it has been observed too. So we have a theory, which predicts the same effects, like the Big Bang model for visible light and it remains predictable for another wavelengths, while it doesn't assume the unphysical processes like the initial singularity and formation of Universe "from nothing"...
jsdarkdestruction
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2012
frajo, its an online science site. dont let the 1's hurt your feelings.....
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2012
WMAP's .. has confirmed .. predictions .. of inflation: the fluctuations follow a bell curve with the same properties across the sky
It's not true, until the Doppler's anisotropy is taken into account. But this anisotropy is usually subtracted from data in the very first stages of results evaluation. It doesn't fit the model, so its simply removed.
..there are equal numbers of hot and cold spots on the map...
Such an effect occurs during scattering of ripples the water surface too: at the very end of visibility scope the scattering of ripples follows the Gaussian curve with the same number of positive and negative deviations. But before it we should observe another effects, which would violate the Gaussian character of the scattering.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2012
If you would follow the scattering of ripples at the water surface, you will note that their circles get the character of particle solitons with distance. In another words, the light propagates like system of sparse particles at the very distances and it undergoes the particle packing geometry, which can be described with Lie E8 group as a system of nested dodecahedrons. These structures appear on the one half of sky (the another one is destroyed with Doppler's anisotropy) and it violates the Gaussian character of CMBR fluctuations apparently. These deviations cannot be explained with inflationary models and they point to the scattering model of Universe "expansion" too.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2012
Illustratively speaking, if we would observe our Universe like the water surface with its own waves, then the surface ripples would dominate this observation, until they will not get scattered with underwater at the distance. At the very distance the portion of information mediated with longitudinal waves will become apparent too. As the description of the picture correctly states, in this scenario the space-time is curved like the Klein bottle or Mobius strip and it returns portion of information back again toward its observer. If you make a splash at the water surface, then the subtle portion of its energy will return back again in form of underwater sound waves.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2012
Sweet! Going to the WMAP site and reading the papers, one find they also constrain the inflation process more than ever.

Ironically one of the best mechanisms is the original suggestion of Starobinsky's, which isn't in the form of a field (but can be put that way).

@ GSwift7: It's in Bennett et al's main paper: "It may well turn out that the dominant
mass-energy component of our universe is a cosmological constant arising from vacuum energy, ...".

Residual vacuum energy should result from the zero-point energy of particle fields, and is also what is predicted by the inflationary landscape over FRW universes with vacuum energy and the string landscape over geometric foldings with vacuum energy.

Negative time doesn't make any observational sense, the process of time is observed by periodic clocks.

@ cantdrive: Besides EU universe being rejected by observation (no cosmological EM energy processes), Arp's ideas are rejected similarly (no galaxy associations).
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2012
@ frajo: Different times, different mores. Mainly they didn't accept it originally on grounds that it made the universe much larger, an argument from incredulity fallacy. Later it was religion taking over, so argument from authority instead.

@ Lurker: "What happened to "the laws of physics re the same for every observer" and "the laws of physics don't change"?"

Nothing, as you would know if you read Bennett et al's paper, it is a 6 (or 7) *fixed parameter* cosmology dynamics. Why do you think otherwise, when nothing such has been claimed?

Yup, "antigravity" is a dumb description, and Bennett should know better than to try to analogize thusly. But spacetime is expanding as we all know from redshift observations. (Or you need a truly cosmic "conspiracy" of galactic motions.)

@ Valeria: It isn't "circular" of course, or it wouldn't be the accepted cosmology! Read the papers for details - you will find no circularity.

And "aether" has been rejected by observation, give it a rest.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2012
Negative time doesn't make any observational sense, the process of time is observed by periodic clocks.
The negative time processes are just those observed/mediated with quantum processes, i.e. with longitudinal waves, where we are observing the Universe from "outside". Such a processes aren't quite rare - for example large galaxies do condense from gravastars, i.e. inside out, rather than with accretion, i.e. from outside-in.
frajo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2012
There is really no point in worrying about the ratings of the comments at all.

If you think I'm worrying about the ratings you just prove that you didn't understand my remark. As I'm not yearning to be understood by everyone that's ok for me.
frajo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2012
frajo, its an online science site. dont let the 1's hurt your feelings.....

Thanks for confirming your level of understanding.
Widdekind
1 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2012
Dan Maoz' "Astrophysics in a Nutshell" sketches two quick calculations, of the optical depth, of the ionized IGM, from earth, out-and-back to high redshift. Both basically boil down to equating the mean-free-path of Thompson scattering, to the Hubble distance (c/H). If the IGM harbors 6 ions per cubic meter, then the redshift out at which the optical depth rises to one, is (1 z) ~ (8-10). Of course, the IGM was largely neutral before (z~6), and the optical depth out to that epoch is ~2/3. Never-the-less, would not such an optical depth potentially blur background sources (z>6), e.g. high-redshift proto-galaxies, and the CMB? Perhaps, therefore, high-redshift proto-galaxies are intrinsically blurry?
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2012
Sweet! Going to the WMAP site and reading the papers, one find they also constrain the inflation process more than ever.

That's nice. While the parameter space for inflationary models - hampered by non-falsifiable multiverse implications and the anthropic principle - is dwindling away and inexplicable patterns in the CMB have been found alternative cosmologies (like the ekpyrotic model) are becoming more attractive.

I don't like inflation. It's a mathematical only, unphysical patch to artificially "explain" the observed cosmological flatness, homogeneity, and isotropy.
Mathematics is not automatically to be trusted in physics as it's immensely more powerful. Just delve into the Banach-Tarski Paradoxon to catch a glimpse of the unphysical potency of mathematics.
Until particle physics is not coming up with a theory that predicts the existence and the properties of an "inflaton" it will remain an anthropic makeshift solution.
Widdekind
1.6 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
CMB temperature fluctuations represent sound waves, in the then-ionized, then-radiatively-pressurized, primordial space plasma. The sound speed was most of the speed of light. The sound wave lengths were hundreds of thousands of light-years. Ipso facto, CMB temperature fluctuations must be varying, on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years. E.g. if ancient Neanderthals had had WMAP, then their CMB sky would have looked different, than the figure in the above article. With ten years of data collection, WMAP may have already observed changes, of order 10^(-4), representing real trends (peaks --> troughs), and not merely noise. WMAP observations should be extended, for 100s of Kyr; Sci-Fi-esque "Babylonian / Egyptian" ages-long record keeping, extended for centuries of millennia, would observe a complete restructuring of the CMB background
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2012
Until particle physics is not coming up with a theory that predicts the existence and the properties of an "inflaton" it will remain an anthropic makeshift solution.

This, of course, should read "As long as particle physics ...".
gwrede
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2012
.

Dear PhysOrg!!

I have only one thing to ask for, this Christmas. I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.

Your's sincerely
One of thousands of frustrated readers!
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2012
I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.

While I sympathize with your wishing I don't believe that there's a correlation between decency and whatever "IQ" is supposed to mean.
Because the habit of posting with several nicks (as well as a series of other detrimental habits like the worshipping of violence) is not caused by a lack of intellectual capacity but by a lack of social decency.

As for the constant background of anti- and pseudo-scientific noise (like AWT, Creationism, EU) generated by certain individuals it's definitely sort of molesting. But I'm no child anymore and don't need administrative help to cope with that.
Tuxford
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Well CERN declared that the god particle was found too! And a bit later, there were TWO gods? Ooops. Same here, I am afraid. If you look hard enough, one can justify any almost any data. Sounds like they have been working on the justifications for nine years, and Boom, I mean Bang, right before XMAS? Jingle bells.

There are a lot of career reputations at stake here. It cannot be found otherwise. The fantasy must simply be true. Nothing short of that conclusion will be allowed. Happy holidays.
Widdekind
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2012
On second thought, Reionization was complete, across the cosmos, by about z~6. But, some protogalaxies have been observed, out to z~(8-12). So, foreground of those anomalously distant protogalaxies, must reside anomalously-early-re-ionized space plasma, from z~6 to z~(8-12), as schematically depicted, in one of the above figures. Otherwise, neutral hydrogen would have absorbed out much of the starlight. So, seemingly, the equations for optical depth apply to all observable galaxies, for whom (nearly) all material foreground of them, along the entire sightline to earth, must (?) be ionized. And so, optical depths out to such faroff galaxies might be ~(1.0-1.5). Dimming & blurring of high redshift protogalaxies presumably implies the space density of space plasma.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2012
There was a lengthy discussion on the inflationary period in that link with some claiming the inflationary period only expanded the universe to the size of a grapefruit, I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.


The quote refers only to the observable universe but you are also confusing the lookback time with radius, they are not the same. The universe has been expanding ever since so the sizes now and then differ too. The material which emitted the CMBR was at a radius of 42 million light years at that time but it is at 46 billion light years now. The ratio is the same as the redshift of the CMBR or z=1089. It is the voulme within that radius which was "the size of a grapefruit" at the end of inflation.
theon
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2012
Non convincing discussion of the H0=70 fit versus the Riess value H0=74. No word on the Ellis galaxy at z=10.9 that should not be visible with ionization at z=10. No word about the model's inability to predict Galactic properties. LCDM lives forever (as an effective theory), but CDM can not exist.
theon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2012
Non convincing discussion of tension between the H0=70 fit and the Riess value H0=74. No word on the axis of evil properties. No word on the Ellis galaxy at z=10.9 that should not be visible with ionization at z=10; galaxy abundance may just continue at the Ellis rate towards z>>10. No word about the model's inability to predict Galactic properties beyond rotation curves; the adjusted number of luminous satellites do not work out dynamically; that the many dark ones have not been observed. LCDM lives forever (as an effective theory), but CDM can not exist.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
torbjorn:

Negative time doesn't make any observational sense, the process of time is observed by periodic clocks


Yeah, I reasoned around to that after that post. See my following post where I retracted that notion, and replaced it with a field with increased rate of time at the center.

Here's a quote from the wiki on vaccum energy:

Quantum theory of the vacuum further stipulates that the pressure of the zero-state vacuum energy is always negative and equal to ρ. Thus, the total of ρ-3p becomes -2ρ: A negative value. This calculation implies a repulsive gravitational field, giving rise to expansion


A repulsive gravitational field can be conceptualized as a field of increased rate of time flow, in the sense that gravity is a distortion of spacetime.
Widdekind
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
Simplistically, the integrated path length, from z~(6-12), equals Int( c dt = c/H0 dz/(1 z)^5/2) ~ 300Mlyrs. Thus, for protogalaxies at z~12 to be observed, they must reside in a region which was ionized several hundred million years earlier than the cosmic average. And, several hundred million lightyears at z~10 would correspond to several billion lightyears at present epoch; many galaxies might lie on, or near, sightlines so long. Perhaps high-redshift galaxies (z~12) are surrounded by a "halo" of intermediate-redshift galaxies (z~(6-12)) which have ionized the intervening IGM?
theon
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2012
for protogalaxies at z~12 to be observed, they must reside in a region which was ionized several hundred million years earlier than the cosmic average.

This type of ad hoc arguments have kept LCDM alive till now, and there are many of them. But then LCDM is not predictive but an epicycle theory, that one day must collapse.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
Well, exactly. Given the fact, that the inflation theory was designed just for explanation of homogeneity of universe, I do perceive improbable, it would allow such an inhomogeneity of Universe at its beginning. I presume, new generation of infrared telescopes will reveal, such a galaxies are everywhere.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2012
WMAP's .. has confirmed .. predictions .. of inflation: the fluctuations follow a bell curve with the same properties across the sky
It's not true, until the Doppler's anisotropy is taken into account. But this anisotropy is usually subtracted from data in the very first stages of results evaluation. It doesn't fit the model, so its simply removed.


It fits the model perfectly, it is simply the "Doppler shift" component caused by the Solar System's proper motion relative to the mean of the plasma that emitted the CMBR.

No matter how much you whine, the current model will continue to be accepted unless someone comes up with an alternative that explains the source of the CMBR and Hubble expansion, just picking the two most obvious observations that eliminate most cranks ideas.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2012
In AWT ..


There is no such thing as "AWT" as you admitted yourself.

the Universe is steady-state and the red shift is the consequence of light scattering with density fluctuations of vacuum in similar way, ... This simple model can be falsified experimentally, ..


And of course it has been. Firstly, scattering produces a shift which is dependent on frequency while cosmological redshift is independent. Secondly, the duration of SNe light curves would be constant if redshift were caused by scattering but they are stretched by the same factor:

http://phys.org/n...rly.html

like the changes of wavelength of ripples during their spreading along water surface


In water of uniform depth, the wavelength doesn't change. You need to learn some very basic physics before trying these more complex topics.
CrooklynBoy
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
I am just an average joe, not a scientist, but when i read "non-atomic matter" it blew me away... I never knew such a thing existed. If its 'non' atomic, what is it made of?
CrooklynBoy
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2012
.

Dear PhysOrg!!

I have only one thing to ask for, this Christmas. I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.

Your's sincerely
One of thousands of frustrated readers!


SNOB
rubberman
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
I am just an average joe, not a scientist, but when i read "non-atomic matter" it blew me away... I never knew such a thing existed. If its 'non' atomic, what is it made of?


That is a very valid question. The matter you know about is referred to a baryonic matter. It is all the matter we can detect and measure. There is no defined parameters of the "other stuff" except assumed existence based on various phenomena that said stuff is resposible for.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2012
the current model will continue to be accepted unless someone comes up with an alternative that explains the source of the CMBR and Hubble expansion, just picking the two most obvious observations that eliminate most cranks ideas.
No, it's not that simple. The current model (SM) will continue to be accepted unless someone comes up with an alternative that explains the source of the CMBR and Hubble expansion
and additionally
explains one or more observations that can't be explained by the SM.

(Ever heard of the Ekpyrotic Model? It does explain the source of the CMBR and Hubble expansion - and abolishes the need for "inflation" - but our observation techniques are not yet sensitive enough to tell the ekpyrotic spectrum of gravitational waves from the inflationary spectrum. The inflation model with its unbelievable high energy densities predicts scale-invariant amplitudes while Ekpyrosis works with smaller energy densities and predicts a spectrum that's not scale-invariant.)
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2012
I am just an average joe, not a scientist, but when i read "non-atomic matter" it blew me away... I never knew such a thing existed. If its 'non' atomic, what is it made of?


The wording of the article is rather non-technical, leading to some confusion if you try to go into specifics.

In the context of the article, they are talking about things like neutrons, protons, electrons, and perhaps photons, nutrinos and quasi-particles that materialize and self-destroy on a quantum scale in 'empty' space.

In layperson's terms, think pieces of atoms.

I say, maybe photons and nutrinos because they may or may not be considered as having mass, and therefore may or may not contribute to the aparent mass balance of the Universe at large scales. This is still in the process of experimental investigation. Photons, for example, do not apear to have mass, but they have the ability to transfer momentum from one massive object to another through conservation of mass/energy.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2012
but when i read "non-atomic matter" it blew me away... I never knew such a thing existed.

Just head on over to wikipedia and look up 'matter'. You'll quickly see that there are plenty of types that aren't part of atoms.
swordsman
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2012
As an "outside observer", let me suggest another factor that seems to be overlooked. "First Doppler" only applies to a vector in the radial direction from the observer. If the object has a vector component in the orthogonal direction, it goes unobserved. This leads to a distorted view of the universe when only considering First Doppler. The Second Doppler signal is there, but it seems to always be neglected by assumption.
Kron
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2012
.

Dear PhysOrg!!

I have only one thing to ask for, this Christmas. I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.

Your's sincerely
One of thousands of frustrated readers!


SNOB


My thoughts exactly.

I guess us regular folk should not be allowed to discuss our inferior thoughts, eh gwrede? You're a pompous God complexed, attention hungry €unt, writing stupid a$$ comments for shock value, a$$hole. WTF is that:

'My only wish this year physorg'? ohh, what a cute wish gwrede.. Did you also include this in your letter to Santa this year? Go sit by the garbage where you belong you sorry excuse for a human being!

With utmost sincerity (seriously),
Kronos Slayer
Official despiser of pompous pr!ck a$$hole$

Fuck!ng douche bag!
PhyOrgSux
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
A question for anyone who might know. I some articles I have seen the Dark Energy and Dark Matter being described as one. But in this article it is referred to as two separate types of "stuff".

Is there any current professional studies that indicate that they would somehow be one and same? (I am asking because I do not remember where those articles I read had received their information from)

Thanks!
FrankHerbert
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2012
Kron, if you're too much of a pussy to spell out the word, why don't you refrain from using it?
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2012
Is there any current professional studies that indicate that they would somehow be one and same?

No.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2012
Disrespect begets disrespect. gwrede is a donk and deserves to hear it. I didn't want the admins deleting the comment before he gets that chance.

Making fun of people with mental illnesses is not funny in my books. Schizophrenia is a serious condition. So is downs syndrome. I don't appreciate assholes like him making fun of either. He's a bitch and deserves a bitch slap.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2012
When we decoded it, the universe revealed its history and contents.

Unfortunately, herein , lies the rub and rubs up against the grain of the truth.
To decode the physically obtained, actual observed data, the scientists have to rely on their own basic/axiomatic assumptions to interpret the results. Without any interpretation, the results are basically meaningless.
Take for instance the next line that talks about
WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years.

So where and how does the measurements confirm that the universe is 13.77 billion years old or that the afterglow is indeed that of a young hot baby "only" 375000 years old? Without some basic[and in this case untested] assumptions, one cannot arrive at such an interpretation. No one was there to observe and record said history - it's STILL all speculation
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2012
I have only one thing to ask for, this Christmas. I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.


SNOB


I guess us regular folk should not be allowed to discuss our inferior thoughts ..


The O.P. is right, see the posting guidelines:

http://phys.org/help/comments

"Keep science: ... Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience)."

Unfortunately the site doesn't enforce that rule or 90% of the posts would be deleted.

Nor does it enforce this or yours would have been deleted:

"Be civil: Please respond insightfully and respectfully, avoiding personal attacks and name calling. Do not make comments that ... degrade others. Personal attacks will not be tolerated."

This is harder:

"Do not 'feed' the trolls"

Most of the posters here are not trolls, just clueless idiots with minimal knowledge of basic science.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2012
A question for anyone who might know. I some articles I have seen the Dark Energy and Dark Matter being described as one. But in this article it is referred to as two separate types of "stuff".

Is there any current professional studies that indicate that they would somehow be one and same? (I am asking because I do not remember where those articles I read had received their information from)

Thanks!


No, they are entirely different. Dark matter can be mapped and forms clouds in space, it must be a substance with mass affected by gravity.

http://en.wikiped...k_matter

Dark energy isn't well named, it seems to be a good fit to the Cosmological Constant Einstein included in the equations of General Relativity:

http://en.wikiped...constant
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2012
To decode the physically obtained, actual observed data, the scientists have to rely on their own basic/axiomatic assumptions to interpret the results. Without any interpretation, the results are basically meaningless.


Nope, the only axion of science is that the physical laws are repeatable.

Cosmological models are based on GR which has been tested by observation and never failed. If a better theory is found in future, it must also be constrained by those observations.

Cosmology itself adds one further assumption, the Copernican Principle, which states that the universe is homogenous and isotropic over large scales. That has been tested and is reasonably well confirmed, studies so far have also shown no deviation beyond expected statistical variations.

We may not have existed at the time the CMBR was released but we can still observe it and objects from 12 billion years ago onwards, the current model is based firmly on observation.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2012
Dark Energy and Dark Matter being described as one... Is there any current professional studies that indicate that they would somehow be one and same?
Yes it is. This picture illustrates the AWT model of the observable universe with few black holes inside of it. The black holes have the same geometry like the whole Universe, just inverted one. It corresponds the fact, that the Universe geometry is described with FLRW metric, which is inverted version of Schwarzchild metric, which is used for black hole description. Now, the dark matter is observed around massive bodies, because it's a product of polarization of CMBR fluctuations with space-time curvature. So it should appear around event horizon of black holes in the same way, like around event horizon of the observable part of Universe.
PhyOrgSux
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2012
Thank you frajo, FleetFoot, & ValeriaT for a reply to my question. Much appreciated. I will here bring out that a short "thank you" posting here at PhysOrg may result in a message from PhysOrg complaining about unnecessary verbosity on a posted message. Calling other people dorks and morons seems to be fine, however.
Kron
1 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2012
Nope, the only axio[m] of science is that the physical laws are repeatable.

Every hypothesis begins with one or more assumptions (or axioms) about nature. The derivation of a theory proves the compatibility of the hypothesis with nature. Once a theory is derived the assumptions are proven within the context of the model.

This 'proof' is a tricky thing to understand at times. Proving a theory does not mean the assumptions made are true. Proof of a theory means that the model contrived is in a 1:1 relation with nature.

An assumption (axiom) of Special Relativity is the invariance of the speed of light. The math of STR 'proves' this assumption because empirical evidence (observational data) plugged into the equations of STR gives a result equal to the result seen in nature. The theory is in a 1:1 relation with nature.

We mustn't forget that Newtons theories were at one time in a 1:1 relation with nature, too. Further observations caused the relationship to fail.
indio007
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2012
Maybe non mainstream theory should be defined better in the posting policy. A lot of the articles on here are non-mainstream. i.e. 500 phases of matter...
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2012
Proof of a theory means that the model contrived is in a 1:1 relation with nature.

We mustn't forget that Newtons theories were at one time in a 1:1 relation with nature, too.
According to your language this means that Newton's theory had been proved.
Further observations caused the relationship to fail.
Now what? Is Newton's theory - according to your language - proved or not?

Short lesson:
[1]
Scientific theories cannot be proved, they can only be confirmed.
[2]
Confirming a theory is good but no lasting warranty for our knowledge. We can never be certain whether the theory will pass the next observational test.
Falsifying a theory is a lasting warranty for our knowledge. Once the theory is falsified, we can be certain it is falsified forever.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2012
Thank you frajo, FleetFoot, & ValeriaT for a reply to my question. Much appreciated


You should know that Valeria's answer is a crackpot answer. AWT is not taken seriously by anyone actually working in the field.

posting here at PhysOrg may result in a message from PhysOrg complaining about unnecessary verbosity on a posted message


I'm pretty sure that is triggered by some kind of anti-spam software they have built into the message board. It doesn't work properly and you'll see it do strange things from time to time. I've gotten those before, and had no trouble reposting the exact same thing later. There doesn't seem to be any human moderation of the comments on this site. If there is, then it doesn't seem to be people who read English.

Also, don't even bother looking at the 'rating' thingy. There are a bunch of antisocial creeps who get a thrill out of giving 1's. I don't give out any ratings at all, positive or negative any more. It just feeds the trolls.
Kron
1 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2012
frajo,
When all of the known natural phenomena are explainable by a model we have a 1:1 relationship. So, yes, Newtons theory was 'proven'. The theory was later falsified due to observation of new phenomena, nature beat the theory 2:1, there was 1 more thing in nature than theory could explain. Comprende?
Kron
1 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2012
We can never be certain whether the theory will pass the next observational test.

We mustn't forget that Newtons theories were at one time in a 1:1 relation with nature, too. Further observations caused the relationship to fail.

Similar?
Scientific theories cannot be prove[n]

Agreed. But physics papers are labelled as "proofs", which is why I explained that the proof is not one of nature, but a proof of the model.