New study states the universe was not created by a Big Bang as thought. Would you accept the new findings?

Question

I'll ask my college professor in my astronomy class tonight about this. My first class tonight. The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a Big Bang. Check out http://www.sciencedaily.com-Big Bang Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test
How would you feel if our planet Earth & all life wasn't created by the Big Bang, but by creation? Let's hear your intergalactic response & thoughts.

Answer 1

Science is a quest for truth. It is not static, there are always questions and new answers. I will accept what the evidence shows to be true until new evidence arises.

Answer 2

The new study looks OK. Here is the link to the actual paper, BTW.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0510/0510160.pdf

Still, the jury is out on this one. These guys used a very particularly selected sample from one part of the sky; there could be a systematic calibration error. They may have made any number of mistakes in their data analysis, or they may not. An different group needs to carry out the same study on the same clusters, and probably more so their work will have some value no matter what they find.

That is called confirmation. Like cosmo says, this detection goes against many other sets of observations of the Sunya'ev-Zeldovich effect (essentially the big bang afterglow microwaves pass through hot gas, and themselves get heated up by scattering off of hot fast moving electrons, so they get taken out of the total Big Bang microwave flux that is measured). The finding needs to be confirmed. People make mistakes sometimes. The mistake might be something mechanical these guys did, or in their sample selection, or something to do with how they or even the WMAP team applied calibrations in this part of the sky where the 31 clusters in question are.

They could be right, but then all the other S-Z experiments carried out over the years have to be explained!

Finally, the authors admit that their measurement is not hugely statistically significant. While unlikely, random statistical error could account for much of their findings. The certainty is higher in the central regions of these clusters (regions about the size of the Milky Way).

Bottom line is we have to wait and see. Give it a few years.

Answer 3

The result you are talking about is a search for the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in nearby clusters of galaxies using the Wilkinson Space Telescope (WMAP). The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect is a change in the brightness of the microwave background radiation where it interacts with hot gas in the clusters (thereby creating a "shadow"---although at high frequencies, around 250 GHz, the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect is actually a brightening, not a shadowing like it is at low radio frequencies). The result is that the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect is not as strong as expected in those 31 clusters.

There could be several reasons for this:

1) The scientists doing the work made a mistake---it's a complicated measurement, using a complicated satellite that was not really meant to do this experiment, and perhaps they screwed up. It wouldn't be the first time. If so, then this result can be checked with other instruments.

2) The clusters of galaxies have bright sources in them that cancel out the "shadows". The scientists mentioned in the article suggest this as an explanation, but if this is true then they have really screwed up---these are, after all, nearby clusters of galaxies that were surveyed at radio frequences (with beams much smaller than the WMAP satellite) long ago. Any such sources would be in radio source catalogs and they could have just looked them up in the year or two since they got their data.

3) The amount of cluster gas is less than they expected. Again, if this is true, then somebody has made a mistake because all those clusters have been mapped in X-ray emission years ago, and the amount and temperature of the cluster gas should be well-determined by those observations.

Now, the article also makes the stunning claim that yet another possibility is that the Microwave Background Radiation comes from in front of these clusters, thereby casting into doubt the whole Big Bang theory. One big problem with this assertion is that the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect has been observed in lots of other clusters (maybe 200) by other telescopes and other scientific teams, and the results are generally in accord with what is expected from the "Big Bang Theory". These data are so extensive, and so accurate, that there is little room for error, and the result has been repeated by several rival groups of scientists. Most of those clusters were more distant than the clusters in this study: the WMAP satellite can only look at big, nearby clusters.

The "Big Bang Theory" is supported by many lines of evidence. For one thing, the "Big Bang" is basically predicted by the Theory of General Relativity, and that theory has survived many demanding tests. The "Big Bang Theory" explains many observations in astronomy that are not explained by any other theory:

1) The evolution of stars and galaxies with time.

2) The abundance of Hydrogen, Deuterium and Helium with respect to other elements.

3) The detailed evolution of distant supernovae, as they brighten and fade over several weeks.

4) The expansion of the Universe, where distant galaxies are moving away faster than nearby galaxies.

5) The existence of the Cosmic Microwave Radiation, as an extremely uniform blackbody coming from all directions.

No other theory explains these things as well as the "Big Bang Theory". The Big Bang is central to modern astronomy: it is consistent with, and helps explain, almost everything seen through telescopes. So if you want to replace it with some other theory, that theory has a lot of explaining to do.

My guess is that the scientists quoted in your article made some mistake somewhere in their data analysis or interpretation. If so, that will likely be corrected by further observations by other scientists in the next few years.

Answer 4

I have checked the article of the failed experiment. I am not a scientist, but it doesn't convince me a bit.
All the matter and energy of the universe were blown away from the center of the Big Bang by the explosion, it can be assumed on average at the same speed.
Then matter and energy today shall be concentrated in the thick surface of a sort of expanding bubble.
Original,very faint fossil background energy, not emitted by any present body should have been traveling since the beginning around the bubble "surface", thus reaching our instruments from every direction.
Being that the case, which shadow would you expect?

I am still very attached to the Big Bang and the Evolution theories.
They DO NOT CONTRADICT CREATION! Unless somebody can tell WHICH METHOD the Creator has chosen to create.
For me He could very well have chosen to start the Creation with a nice huge explosion and make it continue today and beyond with the rules He established for the Evolution of the matter and the living creatures to take place.

Answer 5

That Big Bang Question again...
The Universe existed before the Big Bang, The Big Bang is a result of an event that caused the Big Bang, Like maybe a collition between two solid sphears or two solid cubes of some kind of frozen matter.
This colliding event generated energy that lit up into what is now the known visible universe...
I think...maybe...cause explotions are caused by colliding objects, over heating or chemical reactions...

Answer 6

First of all, it doesn't matter, what really happened there maybe about 15 billion years ago. Firstly this "age" of the unioverse is just a very insecure figure and secondly, if we knew, would it change anything?
Nonetheless, here my statement:
I do not believe any of the two, neither big bang nor creation. I belive much more in changes or in diffusion between different kinds of existence ... of course on the large scale of the universe.

In theory, the universe itself could be a living organism ... we'll never know. What if we are just subatomic particles, and our Earth is nothing more than a single electron racing around one proton (the sun) ... and we are no more than the chemical matter that carries e.g. information ... who knows ?

If it was like that, would it change anything for us? for mankind? At least not withing the next 1000 years. ...

Answer 7

I personally have always had the idear that this universe was born from another one. Something like a rupture from an out of control black hole from an older universe and as the material ejected from it created somewhat of a bang, but not the type of bang science has taught us.

Answer 8

Like I've stated before in some of my answers, science has proven itself wrong many more times than that of the Bible. Science will keep re-answering questions because they don't have the real answer. God created the universe, the world and man.

Answer 9

I don't believe in either creation or big bang. Matters not how the universe was created.

Answer 10

I already believed in creation rather than the big bang, so not surprised.