Thread: The Standard Model of Cosmology Changed Today

from ΛCDM to I/ΛCDM.

Astronomical observations from the South Pole through the Earth's Magnetosphere (which is weak at that point) have established that the expected signature from Cosmic Inflation, proposed first by Alan Guth, exists in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation to indicate that the Big Bang was preceeded by a very short period of exponential expansion, followed by the vacuum decay of the inflaton, and the subsequent Big Bang due to the energy of the inflaton being dumped into the newly created Minkowski spacetime of our local universe. And by "local" I mean segments of the universe that we can never see again.

This is intended as an anchor post for Daecon's great post in the News forum, for us to discuss this in Astronomy and Cosmology. This is, quite frankly, epic news. We have found out what our universe came from and seen the signature of its formation.

Here is the best article I've found: http://www.nature.com/news/telescope-captures-view-of-gravitational-waves-1.14876

Here is @Daecon's original article: http://www.thescienceforum.com/news/...ry-hailed.html

Nominated for #PostoftheMonth. Great stuff @Daecon.

What is bigger -going back so far towards the beginning of our universe or seemingly finding gravitational waves (and coming closer to unifying quantum theory and gravitation?) ?

Yes.

Oh there's no need to give me any credit, I was just quick enough to have posted it first. I'm sure someone else would have made the same thread within a few hours if I hadn't done so.

Fixed I think. Pardon my enthusiasm, you almost beat the Schneibsteress and she is generally The Best.

I guess this means we won't get any more threads questioning the big bang theory, right?

Well, you can, but it's kinda like the threads questioning relativity now. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, etc.

Or individuals claiming perpetual motion, or free energy from magnetism. We're now, you know, a couple levels beyond those sorts of claims. It's kind of like claiming your dog's spirit met you on the Ouija Board. Yeah, sure man, here have another hit.

Given we see hard evidence in the sky of the Big Bang, and now (based on this new evidence) of Cosmic Inflation, I have to ask what you believe your evidence that denies it is.

This is not a discovery as such, it only confirms what Einstein already told us. Unfortunately it doesn't get us any closer to understanding where the energy itself came from, Any news on this subject is good news though, so the researchers deserve a big pat on the back.

Originally Posted by AE,disciple

This is not a discovery as such, it only confirms what Einstein already told us.

Of course it's a discovery.
Unless you're of the opinion that Einstein was infallible.
And that everyone else should simply take his word things.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Well, you can, but it's kinda like the threads questioning relativity now. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, etc.

Or individuals claiming perpetual motion, or free energy from magnetism. We're now, you know, a couple levels beyond those sorts of claims. It's kind of like claiming your dog's spirit met you on the Ouija Board. Yeah, sure man, here have another hit.

Given we see hard evidence in the sky of the Big Bang, and now (based on this new evidence) of Cosmic Inflation, I have to ask what you believe your evidence that denies it is.

You might have missed the tongue in cheek there. Every now and then somebody will show up here and start an anti-BBT thread. If they can look past the CMBR, the redshift data, and everything else, I don't suppose this will stop them either.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Well, you can, but it's kinda like the threads questioning relativity now. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, etc.

Or individuals claiming perpetual motion, or free energy from magnetism. We're now, you know, a couple levels beyond those sorts of claims. It's kind of like claiming your dog's spirit met you on the Ouija Board. Yeah, sure man, here have another hit.

Given we see hard evidence in the sky of the Big Bang, and now (based on this new evidence) of Cosmic Inflation, I have to ask what you believe your evidence that denies it is.

You might have missed the tongue in cheek there. Every now and then somebody will show up here and start an anti-BBT thread. If they can look past the CMBR, the redshift data, and everything else, I don't suppose this will stop them either.

Quite the contrary, An event certainly occurred and as you rightly state the CMBR is evidence of that, redshift tells us that Hubble got it right with his explanation of cosmic expansion. So the point I am making is that Einstein had already predicted this, meaning there is no discovery, Its just a verification of what Einstein predicted.

Einstein predicted gravitational waves 98 years ago, It has taken until now to develop the technology to detect them. As far as Einstein being infallible goes....He did almost make a mistake once concerning the cosmological constant, but it turns out that even when he is wrong , he is right. "Thats genius for you !!!"

Peter Higgs predicted the presence of an undiscovered boson. Why did he cry with joy when they announced it was confirmed? It's not like they discovered anything....

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Peter Higgs predicted the presence of an undiscovered boson. Why did he cry with joy when they announced it was confirmed? It's not like they discovered anything....

Because he had the same name as the new particle. What are the odds of that? You're more likely to win the lottery!

[QUOTE=Harold14370;540698]I guess this means we won't get any more threads questioning the big bang theory, right? [/QUOTE

No We must always ask questions, this is how we learn

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Well, you can, but it's kinda like the threads questioning relativity now. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, etc.

Or individuals claiming perpetual motion, or free energy from magnetism. We're now, you know, a couple levels beyond those sorts of claims. It's kind of like claiming your dog's spirit met you on the Ouija Board. Yeah, sure man, here have another hit.

Given we see hard evidence in the sky of the Big Bang, and now (based on this new evidence) of Cosmic Inflation, I have to ask what you believe your evidence that denies it is.

You might have missed the tongue in cheek there. Every now and then somebody will show up here and start an anti-BBT thread. If they can look past the CMBR, the redshift data, and everything else, I don't suppose this will stop them either.

Heh, I chose the wrong pronoun. I should have used "one."

Originally Posted by AE,disciple

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Well, you can, but it's kinda like the threads questioning relativity now. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, etc.

Or individuals claiming perpetual motion, or free energy from magnetism. We're now, you know, a couple levels beyond those sorts of claims. It's kind of like claiming your dog's spirit met you on the Ouija Board. Yeah, sure man, here have another hit.

Given we see hard evidence in the sky of the Big Bang, and now (based on this new evidence) of Cosmic Inflation, I have to ask what you believe your evidence that denies it is.

You might have missed the tongue in cheek there. Every now and then somebody will show up here and start an anti-BBT thread. If they can look past the CMBR, the redshift data, and everything else, I don't suppose this will stop them either.

Quite the contrary, An event certainly occurred and as you rightly state the CMBR is evidence of that, redshift tells us that Hubble got it right with his explanation of cosmic expansion. So the point I am making is that Einstein had already predicted this, meaning there is no discovery, Its just a verification of what Einstein predicted.

Einstein never predicted cosmic inflation, nor for that matter did he predict the Big Bang. He originally added the cosmological term, Λ, to the metric tensor term of his field equation to account for the steady state cosmology, which all the cosmologists of the day insisted was correct. This was of course before the CMBR was discovered by Penzias and Wilson.

Cosmic inflation is not the same as Hubble flow. And it happened before the Big Bang. The cosmological constant that drove it underwent vacuum decay after the universe had expanded to tens of billions (at minimum) of light years, and dumped its energy into the spacetime that had been created. This energy was the Big Bang.

[/QUOTE]Einstein never predicted cosmic inflation, nor for that matter did he predict the Big Bang. He originally added the cosmological term, Λ, to the metric tensor term of his field equation to account for the steady state cosmology, which all the cosmologists of the day insisted was correct. This was of course before the CMBR was discovered by Penzias and Wilson.

Cosmic inflation is not the same as Hubble flow. And it happened before the Big Bang. The cosmological constant that drove it underwent vacuum decay after the universe had expanded to tens of billions (at minimum) of light years, and dumped its energy into the spacetime that had been created. This energy was the Big Bang.[/QUOTE]

Wow.....I'm impressed, It seems that you know more about this subject than anyone else on the planet. Silly old me thought that anything that may have happened prior to the big bang was pure speculation. As you so obviously have it all worked out could you tell me where the energy that initiated the big bang came from, it has puzzled me for ages.
It seems that you know how space and time were created too, now I'm doubly impressed. That simpleton Einstein had me believing that the continuum preceded the singular event, I'm so pleased that someone more intelligent than him, can at last explain the truth. ( you haven't succeeded so far, but I do hope you will give it a go.)
What was it that Einstein said? If my memory serves me correctly, it was something about if you wanted to understand the universe you needed to realize that it was energy expanding into nothing , that is something. (that sounds a bit like expansion to me!)
I will be most disappointed If you don't already know what he meant by; Nothing, that is something. ​

Some things not quite right.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Einstein never predicted cosmic inflation, nor for that matter did he predict the Big Bang. He originally added the cosmological term, Λ, to the metric tensor term of his field equation to account for the steady state cosmology, which all the cosmologists of the day insisted was correct. This was of course before the CMBR was discovered by Penzias and Wilson.

First, nobody really insisted that any particular cosmological model was correct. Einstein argued for a static model despite the insistence of many of his learned friends who thought it unlikely for good reasons. Steady state cosmology was formed well after Einstein's initial cosmological work and survived, for a short while, past the discovery of the background radiation.

Cosmic inflation is not the same as Hubble flow. And it happened before the Big Bang.

It is important to not think of the "big bang theory" as really arguing in favor of a "big bang". If we were to include a so-called "big bang" first moment, then cosmic inflation happens afterwards. Cosmic inflation simply happens before the release of what we call the background radiation, something distinct from the big bang.

The cosmological constant that drove it underwent vacuum decay after the universe had expanded to tens of billions (at minimum) of light years, and dumped its energy into the spacetime that had been created.

Maybe. We do not know that the cosmological constant and the inflaton field are related. It could be somewhat different physics driving inflation than accounts for the cosmological constant.

This energy was the Big Bang.

That statement just doesn't make sense in English.

If gravitational waves are proven to have been generated prior to or during the big bang, then I will be very happy about it. As far as I'm concerned all emerging knowledge is helpful in mankinds ongoing quest to gain an understanding of the universe. However it seems that some amongst us have jumped to the conclusion that should gravitational waves exist, then they are proof of the validity of one or another specific theories regarding the origin of the universe. This point is categorically denied in the article on the subject that I have read. If the researchers have got it right then they are deserving of congratulations for proving this predicted phenomenon exists, a fact that would be good for science in general. I think that given time for digestion there will be some serendipitous spin off in other fields of research. I sincerely hope that this theory holds up to scrutiny.

Originally Posted by AE,disciple

If gravitational waves are proven to have been generated prior to or during the big bang, then I will be very happy about it.

If you use "big bang" to mean "initial singularity", then you are saying nonsense. If you are using "big bang" to mean "the entire history of expansion in the universe" then you are being too vague.

However it seems that some amongst us have jumped to the conclusion that should gravitational waves exist, then they are proof of the validity of one or another specific theories regarding the origin of the universe.

No cosmologist did this. There are some specific predictions about the way that specific kinds of phenomena in the early universe should produce gravity waves with specific kinds of observable results. There are detailed studies of what kinds of phenomena could possibly produce similar observable results. And none of these recent observations of polarity bear on the origin of the universe; they bear on the nature of the universe for a very short period a very long time ago.