Large Hardon Collider

[Eliseos]

Can we jast glass the creationists, bro?

Oh, and biblical timescale means ~6000 years, just to be clear?

[Kryssan]

Can we jast glass the creationists, bro?

Oh, and biblical timescale means ~6000 years, just to be clear?

Glassing them is a waste of resources. I used to know a biologist who planned on using all the bodies of the stupid as fertilizer for terraforming Mars. They can serve a purpose, believe it or not.

[BerenTebogo]

Well, we like to pretend they're just a bunch of crazies who nobody really listens to.

Unfortunately that isn't the case.

http://www.campusexplorer.com/Creati...-in-Education/

Now with even more graphs!

[Cleverness]

Graphs making me rage...

Honestly, I can at least understand someone who believes in Intelligent Design over Creationism at least. They accept to a far point that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is not accurate but believe in something spiritual that created the universe and 'guided' us here, which is at least easier to swallow than "God made the Earth in 7 days a few thousand years ago. And he also put down dinosaur bones and a whole bunch of other stuff that carbon dates back millions of years, all part of the plan."

[BerenTebogo]

Shouldn't be a biology teacher if you plan on teaching religion.

[Cleverness]

How else are we gonna learn how Jesus was born?

[Flarega]

That many biology teachers believe in intelligent design? Oh my Science.

[Eliseos]

Shouldn't be a biology teacher if you plan on teaching religion.

But theology and biology both end in -ology, therefore they are the same thing.

[BerenTebogo]

But theology and biology both end in -ology, therefore they are the same thing.

This is true.

[miokomioko]

Can we really be that extraordinarily accurate when everything we observe has traveled through an unfathomable amount of cosmic caustics?

[BerenTebogo]

Can we really be that extraordinarily accurate when everything we observe has traveled through an unfathomable amount of cosmic caustics?

Your question seems a bit vague to me, but if you're asking what I think you're asking, the answer is yes we can.

It seems you're implying that because of the harsh nature of the universe that the states of matter will be altered or destroyed, but that isn't the case (altered in rare cases, see CMB which is basically an opaque plasma around the 13.6 billion years ago mark).

Hard to really answer you any better than that since I'm not really sure what you're asking.

[Neosutra]

There is the possibility (or probability) that the fundamental universal constants that govern motion/expansion in today's universe were different for an indefinite amount of time shortly after the big bang. In fact most expansion calculations require this.

So Mioko has a valid question in postulating the question "just how accurate can our explanations be if the fundamental physics of it all (that we are basing everything on) are indeed not universal".

[BerenTebogo]

There is the possibility (or probability) that the fundamental universal constants that govern motion/expansion in today's universe were different for an indefinite amount of time shortly after the big bang. In fact most expansion calculations require this.

So Mioko has a valid question in postulating the question "just how accurate can our explanations be if the fundamental physics of it all (that we are basing everything on) are indeed not universal".

Well we have the timeline and amount of expansion(inflation) pretty well mapped out given the relative recent-ness of the theory. It's not exactly a grand mystery and we also have a 13.6 billion year view of static, unchanging, fundamental laws of physics. If any of the ratios varied even slightly post-inflationary period it would be highly unlikely that the necessary requirements would be met (especially re: gravity) for stars and galaxies to form.

A variation between past and present regarding the strong and weak forces would be much more difficult to measure, but electromagnetism and gravity would have left tell-tale signs that we could pick up on today.

[Max™]

Some observations suggest that certain values, such as the fine structure constant, may have changed slightly since the beginning of the Universe... though this has yet to be conclusively shown.

Is that what they were talking about?

[Neosutra]

Well we have the timeline and amount of expansion(inflation) pretty well mapped out given the relative recent-ness of the theory. It's not exactly a grand mystery and we also have a 13.6 billion year view of static, unchanging, fundamental laws of physics. If any of the ratios varied even slightly post-inflationary period it would be highly unlikely that the necessary requirements would be met (especially re: gravity) for stars and galaxies to form.

A variation between past and present regarding the strong and weak forces would be much more difficult to measure, but electromagnetism and gravity would have left tell-tale signs that we could pick up on today.

Not really.

Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, cosmologists presently use "age of the universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang.

The model includes an expansion of metric space that is well documented both as the red shift of prominent spectral absorption or emission lines in the light from distant galaxies and as the time dilation in the light decay of supernova luminosity curves. Both effects are attributed to a Doppler shift in electromagnetic radiation as it travels across expanding space. Paradoxically, while this expansion increases the distance between objects that are not under shared gravitational influence, it does not increase the size of the objects in space. It also allows far distant galaxies to recede from each other at speeds greater than the speed of light.

The problems with the Lambda-CDM expansion is it assumes:

A "flat" spatial geometry, which means that the interior angles of a triangle defined by three beams of light will sum to 180°; space is defined by straight lines. (Alternative geometries include a spherical or "closed universe" in which the interior angles of a triangle would sum to more than 180°, and a hyperbolic or "open universe", in which the angles would sum to less than 180°.) The current values of key parameters imply that the universe is either flat or slightly open.

Λ (Lambda) ( vacuum energy) being correct (i.e. our current theories on dark energy/matter being accurate).

Super relativistic expantion in the first 10^-29 seconds: The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang" or initial singularity, which was not an explosion but the abrupt appearance of expanding space time containing radiation at temperatures of around 1015 K. This was immediately (within 10−29 second) followed by an exponential expansion of space by a scale multiplier of 10^27 or more, known as cosmic inflation.


So basically:
The ΛCDM model is based on six parameters: physical baryon density, physical dark matter density, dark energy density, scalar spectral index, curvature fluctuation amplitude and reionization optical depth.

And half of those parameters are very questionable on their "universal consistency" and our actual quantification of them.

So yes, it is very possible that the laws of physics were inherently very different at early stages of the universe and using our current background radiation methods to attribute expansion/cooling and thus age is possibly -very- wrong.

[BerenTebogo]

Not really.

Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, cosmologists presently use "age of the universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang.

The model includes an expansion of metric space that is well documented both as the red shift of prominent spectral absorption or emission lines in the light from distant galaxies and as the time dilation in the light decay of supernova luminosity curves. Both effects are attributed to a Doppler shift in electromagnetic radiation as it travels across expanding space. Paradoxically, while this expansion increases the distance between objects that are not under shared gravitational influence, it does not increase the size of the objects in space. It also allows far distant galaxies to recede from each other at speeds greater than the speed of light.

The problems with the Lambda-CDM expansion is it assumes:

A "flat" spatial geometry, which means that the interior angles of a triangle defined by three beams of light will sum to 180°; space is defined by straight lines. (Alternative geometries include a spherical or "closed universe" in which the interior angles of a triangle would sum to more than 180°, and a hyperbolic or "open universe", in which the angles would sum to less than 180°.) The current values of key parameters imply that the universe is either flat or slightly open.

Λ (Lambda) ( vacuum energy) being correct (i.e. our current theories on dark energy/matter being accurate).

Super relativistic expantion in the first 10^-29 seconds: The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang" or initial singularity, which was not an explosion but the abrupt appearance of expanding space time containing radiation at temperatures of around 1015 K. This was immediately (within 10−29 second) followed by an exponential expansion of space by a scale multiplier of 10^27 or more, known as cosmic inflation.


So basically:
The ΛCDM model is based on six parameters: physical baryon density, physical dark matter density, dark energy density, scalar spectral index, curvature fluctuation amplitude and reionization optical depth.

And half of those parameters are very questionable on their "universal consistency" and our actual quantification of them.

So yes, it is very possible that the laws of physics were inherently very different at early stages of the universe and using our current background radiation methods to attribute expansion/cooling and thus age is possibly -very- wrong.

This entire post is disingenuous towards the accepted degree of accuracy of both the accepted accuracy of the age of the universe and the degree of error associated with it and our understanding of the six parameters.

To call them "very questionable" is to call any experimentally verifiable value in astrophysics "very questionable" just because you don't agree with it or like the implications it offers.

You're blatantly misrepresenting the state of facts regarding this debate. Whether for an agenda or as a result of ignorance regarding the most up-to-date information being discussed at international conferences, it doesn't change the fact that you're speaking with absolute certainty about things you're clearly not recently familiarized with.

Edit:

Spoiler: show

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across.

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

"That was the last thing I was waiting for: a new prediction made by dark matter, where the observations gave me exactly what the predictions told me they should.

In other words, before the collision, gravity, stars, and gas all lined up. After the collision, the gas (which is where most of the normal matter is) doesn't line up with the stars. But gravity does. This only works if there's some extra type of matter that doesn't smash together and collide like normal matter (i.e., protons, neutrons, and electrons) does. "
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...ill_4panel.jpg
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...cientist_t.php
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/siegel

I didn't want to spend all of my time before class digging through journals, so I only offer a tiny bit of support for my point (non-wiki!) I'd like to see these dissenting opinions regarding the shape of the universe from well-respected astrophysicists. It's fine to disagree about Dark Energy and Dark Matter and what we really do/don't understand about it, but really now.

[Neosutra]

Really Sath? Disingenuous or ignorant? I believe the guy just getting his degree in physics (you) can take a step back and not take such a sophomoric view when discussing advanced concepts with someone -that has already completed their graduate work in physics and worked in the field for several years now- (me).

Now, after you take a step back and stop acting like a over-inflated douche:

I didnt say "hey guys we know for a fact that these constants are wrong". I merely pointed out that Mioko's comment was valid as it referenced the POSSIBILITY of inconsistencies in our current standard models (as they are based on currently observed constants that we -think- are correct: aka dark energy constant).

You really need to not be so quick to except all of our current theories as fact.

I understand as a young almost physicist you feel like you have the world on your shoulders, but from the way you've been talking lately: You've got a lot to learn. If you start insulting people that point out errors in your logic and wiki'd discussions, you aren't bound to learn anything.

In other words:

Spoiler: show

Check yo self fool.

[BerenTebogo]

Really Sath? Disingenuous or ignorant? I believe the guy just getting his degree in physics (you) can take a step back and not take such a sophomoric view when discussing advanced concepts with someone -that has already completed their graduate work in physics and worked in the field for several years now- (me).

Now, after you take a step back and stop acting like a over-inflated douche:

I didnt say "hey guys we know for a fact that these constants are wrong". I merely pointed out that Mioko's comment was valid as it referenced the POSSIBILITY of inconsistencies in our current standard models (as they are based on currently observed constants that we -think- are correct: aka dark energy constant).

I understand as a young almost physicist you feel like you have the world on your shoulders, but from the way you've been talking lately: You've got a lot to learn. If you start insulting people that point out errors in your logic and wiki'd discussions, you aren't bound to learn anything.

You JUST said, and I'll quote again:

The problems with the Lambda-CDM expansion is it assumes:

A "flat" spatial geometry, which means that the interior angles of a triangle defined by three beams of light will sum to 180°; space is defined by straight lines. (Alternative geometries include a spherical or "closed universe" in which the interior angles of a triangle would sum to more than 180°, and a hyperbolic or "open universe", in which the angles would sum to less than 180°.) The current values of key parameters imply that the universe is either flat or slightly open.

Λ (Lambda) ( vacuum energy) being correct (i.e. our current theories on dark energy/matter being accurate).

That the problems with the dating of the universe via the Lambda-CDM expansion, or CMB if you want to just generalize it all into one big topic, are two-fold.

The two examples you cite as problematic are 1) universally accepted within the community, experimentally verified internationally by many independent projects, and out-dated. The being out of date is not necessarily a problem. You were educated in these topics years ago, presumably before this information became canon within the community. The only problem is that if this isn't your direct area of expertise, it's silly to assume that everything you learned over a half decade ago has remained stagnant in an extremely fast-paced field. If this is your specific field then you are being disingenuous, there is no other explanation. and 2) A valid dissent against a still theory-based topic, but I don't think you've shown enough respect to the accuracy of the predictions made by it. That's an opinion though.

The plausibility of Mioko's concerns are inversely related to the widely accepted facts. Yes, it is in all actuality possible, but it is incredibly unlikely (not probable) that we are so wrong on so many fronts that encompass not just theoretical physics but experimentally verifiable science.

I don't fault you for being out of touch with the current news on the subject, but talking like you're an expert on information that you're clearly out of touch with is no less insulting that being corrected by someone who doesn't even have a degree.

The information you learned years ago doesn't qualify you to speak on cutting-edge information unless you've done your homework, which you clearly haven't (in regards to the WMAP project). A 2% margin of error is not grounds to claim "slightly open". It requires a completely different set of complementary total energy ratios that don't support it via experimentation.

[Neosutra]

You JUST said, and I'll quote again:



The two examples you cite as problematic are 1) universally accepted within the community, experimentally verified internationally by many independent projects, and out-dated. The being out of date is not necessarily a problem. You were educated in these topics years ago, presumably before this information became canon within the community. The only problem is that if this isn't your direct area of expertise, it's silly to assume that everything you learned over a half decade ago has remained stagnant in an extremely fast-paced field. If this is your specific field then you are being disingenuous, there is no other explanation. and 2) A valid dissent against a still theory-based topic, but I don't think you've shown enough respect to the accuracy of the predictions made by it. That's an opinion though.

The plausibility of Mioko's concerns are inversely related to the widely accepted facts. Yes, it is in all actuality possible, but it is incredibly unlikely (not probable) that we are so wrong on so many fronts that encompass not just theoretical physics but experimentally verifiable science.

I don't fault you for being out of touch with the current news on the subject, but talking like you're an expert on information that you're clearly out of touch with is no less insulting that being corrected by someone who doesn't even have a degree.

The information you learned years ago doesn't qualify you to speak on cutting-edge information unless you've done your homework, which you clearly haven't (in regards to the WMAP project). A 2% margin of error is not grounds to claim "slightly open". It requires a completely different set of complementary total energy ratios that don't support it via experimentation.

Restating my comments and saying "BUT BUT PEOPLE ACCEPT IT" doesnt make the fact that the Lambda model is based on several questionable postulates. If you think dark energy and dark matter is "nailed down", then you're more sophomoric than I thought.

The current academic community accepts this model (I do as well), -NO SHIT-. What we (the people that have been doing this far longer than you) also accept is: It may be wrong. I also detailed reasons/possibilities on how it may be wrong.

You really need to calm down, take a step back, and actually understand my statements (that the current model does have flaws, and every scientist today that accepts it knows them), and that Mioko was correct in saying our current assessment of the universe is based on a system of laws that may be incorrect.

I realize you feel diverse in your ability to quote wiki, but tone it down a bit, it's embarrassing.

[BerenTebogo]

Restating my comments and saying "BUT BUT PEOPLE ACCEPT IT" doesnt make the fact that the Lambda model is based on several questionable postulates. If you think dark energy and dark matter is "nailed down", then you're more sophomoric than I thought.

The current academic community accepts this model (I do as well), -NO SHIT-. What we (the people that have been doing this far longer than you) also accept is: It may be wrong. I also detailed reasons/possibilities on how it may be wrong.

You really need to calm down, take a step back, and actually understand my statements (that the current model does have flaws, and every scientist today that accepts it knows them), and that Mioko was correct in saying our current assessment of the universe is based on a system of laws that may be incorrect.

I realize you feel diverse in your ability to quote wiki, but tone it down a bit, it's embarrassing.

I just said that Dark Matter / Energy were theories and that the only thing nailed down was spatial curvature.

You're not even bothering to read the argument anymore, you're just trying to bandwagon me in with Max and failing. You're also wielding this magical "I HAVE A DEGREE IN META-PHYSICS!" as if it grants you the title of expert in all fields of Physics.

Also, this is why I'm chopping you down:

Really Sath? Disingenuous or ignorant? I believe the guy just getting his degree in physics (you) can take a step back and not take such a sophomoric view when discussing advanced concepts with someone -that has already completed their graduate work in physics and worked in the field for several years now- (me).

Physics is a tremendously huge field. You don't get a degree and then swing your sword of "knowledge" with impunity across everything from quantum mechanics, to particle physics, to geophysics, to astrophysics, to hydro-dynamics, and etc. You specialize in one field and do your best to not be ignorant of the other fields around you. Nobody, nobody at all, is a universal expert known as "PHYSICS MAN!"

Seriously, unless you're a specialist in the Astro field you've taken the same 2-3 Astro courses that everyone else has (or will take) and that's that. Should I also defer to you regarding matters related to hypothesized revisions to the standard model from the frontline at CERN?

I have a huge gap in my knowledge, and if you confront me about almost anything related to particle physics, I'm just an idiot. It's not where I focus my area of studying. You keep saying "your field" so I'm wondering, what exactly is your degree in?