[HN Gopher] Four years on, new experiment sees no sign of 'cosmi... ___________________________________________________________________ Four years on, new experiment sees no sign of 'cosmic dawn' Author : _Microft Score : 100 points Date : 2022-03-09 17:08 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: | Seems like cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists might now | have enough new food for thought to fill in their boredom with | quantum mechanics. | | Apparently, this result implies new information about dark | matter. | 77pt77 wrote: | > to fill in their boredom with quantum mechanics | | What does this even mean? | SiempreViernes wrote: | No, this is rather a case of the old models probably being the | more correct ones: the EDGES result itself was quite unexpected | and hard to explain in the existing framework as it was much | stronger than expected. | | Now that EDGES looks to be dead, the old predictions of a | weaker effect are validated. | 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: | from the article: | | "a radio astronomer at McGill University in Montreal who | wasn't involved in either experiment, says that both EDGES | and SARAS were extremely thorough in their calibration and | analysis procedures, and that it's too soon to say which | result is correct. "The level of disagreement is enough to | make people uncomfortable, but I think it's far from the end | of the story," she said. "From my perspective, it adds to the | excitement." | | And | | "Stranger still, the dip was very pronounced, suggesting that | hydrogen in the early universe was colder than theoretical | models predicted, possibly because of exotic interactions | with the dark matter that fills the cosmos. Or perhaps the | EDGES dip had a more mundane origin." | | The article seems to imply that the EDGES dip may be due to | mundane, faulty experiment design, instead. | | In any case, a little bit of excitement for those scientists. | djohnston wrote: | Great to see the scientific method at work! I am a layman but | curious to see the next report here. | [deleted] | deanCommie wrote: | For any physicists reading, I have a question about the Big Bang: | Is the standard consensus that the specific physical description | is literal or just the closest approximation/visual model we have | that matches the data? | | I ask because I was in my 30s before I learned that Dark Matter | and Dark Energy are effectively metaphors. There is something | that contributes more gravity in the universe than our | understanding of the it predicts. And there is something that | contributes energy to accelerating the expansion of the universe, | and we have no idea what. So we call them "matter" and "energy" | but TECHNICALLY they don't have to be right? It could also be | that something exists that is completely beyond our bounds of | understanding. | | I ask because this feels very much the situation with the Big | Bang. Even if all the data shows the universe rapidly expanding | in fractions of a second, it is incomprehensible to understand | where the energy for it came from, or what happened "before". And | the answer "nothing happened before because that's when time | started" feels like an acknowledgement of the limitations of our | human understanding. | | So here's my follow-up question: Obviously we build an | understanding of the universe based on observations of the data. | And sometimes the data doesn't match and we have to upgrade | Newtonian Physics to Einsteinian, or introduce Quantum Mechanics, | etc. So are there comparable/equivalent | investigations/experiments going on today that reveal | numbers/observations that are basically fundamentally | unexplainable without looking beyond the realms of our | understanding of the limitations of our universe? | arcadi7 wrote: | Not metaphors . We know these are out there -- we just don't | know a lot about them. The situation is similar to atoms in | second half of 19th century : we knew they are there , we knew | some of their properties but only it the first quarter of 20th | century we learned how much more there is to learn about atoms | caymanjim wrote: | Metaphor probably isn't the right word, but it's not really | wrong either. "Placeholder" is also sorta correct but not | entirely. Dark matter is a placeholder for an as-yet-unknown | thing that interacts with gravity, in the most popular | theories. There are less-popular ideas--still given serious | study and consideration--like MOND that may some day explain | the effects currently labeled as "dark matter". I don't think | it's accurate to say "we know these are out there", and if it | turns out that MOND or some other alternative explains | observations, "dark matter" will turn out to have been fairly | metaphorical (or just plain wrong). | simonh wrote: | The idea that the universe rapidly expanded in a fraction of a | second right at the beginning is called inflation theory, it's | a supplemental modification of the big bang theory and not all | physicists that accept the big bang theory also accept | inflation theory. There are also some theories that try to | explain what there might have been 'before' the big bang, | conformal cyclic cosmology for example. Then there's zero | energy universe hypothesis, which suggests the universe may | have arisen from a random quantum fluctuation - though a | fluctuation of what is unclear. | | So there are quite a few alternative variations on big bang | theories. The observation that the universe is expanding seems | solid, and the detection of the cosmic microwave background | means something must have happened long ago that blasted out | all that energy, seemingly everywhere at once. When you go | beyond those though things start to get less certain. | Zenst wrote: | Fascinating image and reminded me momentarily of Frogspawn, which | is kind of fitting as they are looking at the Frogspawn of time | itself. | strainer wrote: | The big image in the article is just an illustration of the | subject, alas. | overthemoon wrote: | The photos of the EDGES antennas are beautiful. Tools used to | study something so remote, set in remote places. | eisvogel wrote: | I've never heard it mentioned, but I strongly suspect that | cosmological redshift is simply the result of photons losing | energy over vast distances due to some as-of-yet-undiscovered | interaction with the quantum vacuum. It was a couple of vatican- | sponsored jesuits with an obvious creationist agenda who turned | the observation of redshift into an assumption of spatial | expansion to support the theory of a single-point-of-origin | universe with a finite age and a finite size. I think western | science is predisposed, due to religious cultural influence, to | being uncomfortable with an infinite universe, because it implies | our own ultimate insignificance. | jl6 wrote: | Science does not suppose a finite or infinite universe, but | rather an observable universe of finite size plus an | unobservable universe which may or may not be finite in size. | Science is a lot more comfortable and accepting of uncertainty | and unknowns that you give it credit for here. | SiempreViernes wrote: | I think that EDGES probably didn't see a real signal is more or | less the expectation of the field. I remember that the feelings | towards the result at the time was quite sceptical, and it seems | it didn't take long before someone discovered that the published | result wasn't very robust: | https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2018/09/03/edges-and-foregr... | | The people from the follow up instruments are very polite about | all this, which I guess makes sense if you've used the EDGES | result to get money for your own antenna. | wolverine876 wrote: | Which critics have funding that depends on the EDGES result | holding up (rather than, for example, finding something new | themselves)? | | Do you work in that field? I've always read that competition is | pretty brutal in natural sciences. | simonh wrote: | They don't necessarily depend on the EDGES result holding up, | but may be to confirm/refute it. Even if your experiment | refutes EDGES, you don't want to imply EDGES was utter bunk | from the start, because if that was so why did you spend so | much money bothering to test it? Your funding and project | still depends on it having some credibility. | akeck wrote: | Maybe we can get one of these experiments onto the side of the | moon not facing us... | [deleted] | willis936 wrote: | I'm so excited for JWST's data. Observations from the | inflationary period have the potential to completely upend | cosmological dogma. Findings like this are the precursor. I'm | sure theorists are furiously working on alternative models. This | is an exciting period to watch. | astro123 wrote: | Inflation happened during the first tiniest fractions of a | second post big bang. No telescope is going to make direct | observations of the inflationary period so I'm not sure what | you mean by this. | jazzkingrt wrote: | Well, I guess measurements of the early universe (100-250 | million years after the big bang) can test predictions made | by models of the inflationary period. | astro123 wrote: | Measurements of pretty much any time in the universe can | test predictions made by models of the early universe. One | of the main reasons we think there was inflation is from | late time (near today) observations of matter density (see | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem). | throwawaycities wrote: | > No telescope is going to make direct observations of the | inflationary period so I'm not sure what you mean by this. | | Isn't this an engineering problem and what we are attempting | to do with gravitational wave detectors? | | I know at one time it was believed gravitational waves were | detected that provided direct evidence for inflationary | theory but then the data was determined to be dust from the | Milky Way. I thought this was still one of the major ongoing | efforts in gravitational wave detection, was this ruled out? | slowmovintarget wrote: | This isn't just an engineering problem. Photons couldn't | move around for the first 380K years or so. Space was | nearly uniform, hot, and dense. The CMB is literally the | heat wave left over from the point where the heavy soup | thinned out just enough to allow photons to fly away in all | directions. | | The gravitational waves from those events would have | already warped space, and the ones just now reaching us | would be from the edge of the observable universe, and so | too weak for any instruments we could conceivably build in | the next few decades. Not that we shouldn't try, mind you. | There are new frontiers in quasimatter and time crystals | that could yield far more accurate gravitational wave | detectors. | | Also fascinating would be to attempt to decipher the | deformations left in the metric already. There are some | theories that basically say gravity waves permanently | "crumple" spacetime, and it might be possible to read | signatures of such events if this is so. | dataflow wrote: | > There are some theories that basically say gravity | waves permanently "crumple" spacetime | | Does that mean those theories predict you can achieve | permanent gravitational effects (locally) without any | matter or energy to cause it? Wouldn't that violate | relativity? | simonh wrote: | No, you still need something to create the gravity waves. | The idea is that once a gravity wave has passed through a | region of spacetime it leaves a permanent deformation. In | the case of a detector like LIGO this means rather than | the mirrors wobbling relative to each other and then | settling down to their previous configuration, in fact | they are left in a (very slightly) permanently altered | configuration. The difference is probably way too small | to detect though, for now anyway. | dataflow wrote: | I understand what you're writing (I think), but I don't | think I understand how the implications would be | consistent with relativity unfortunately. I thought | gravity is (supposedly) caused by the deformation of | space. If your space isn't flat, then you're going to | experience acceleration (aka gravity) at that point, | right? And if this deformation is permanent, then its | source is already long gone - meaning that when you look | down to see why you're falling, you see that there's no | matter or energy causing you to fall. Which seems weird | to me because I thought you need some kind of | matter/energy to cause space to curve (and hence feel | gravity/acceleration). Is that not the case? | metalliqaz wrote: | But those aren't really "telescopes", are they? :) | throwawaycities wrote: | Yes gravitational wave telescopes is commonly used along | with gravitational wave detectors, gravitational wave | instruments and gravitational wave observatories. | willis936 wrote: | I'm referring to the earliest era of transparent space, when | conventional matter supposedly coalesced. If we look back to | that period and still see red-shifted mature galaxies then | something is very wrong with the current models. I'm under | the impression that we don't have good observations of the | period 375k-400M years after inflation and that infant galaxy | observations have not been confirmed. | metalliqaz wrote: | The earliest moment of transparent space is the CMB. I know | JWST can't detect Pop3 stars, but is there even | expectations that it could detect proto galaxies with those | stars? I thought it was still much later, like the early | Pop2 generation. | jxoxsknd wrote: | digitcatphd wrote: | Wouldn't the James Webb telescope be the optimal device for | collecting and deciphering this data? | | Seems like we're on the brink of potentially the most significant | scientific discovery since Copernicus, or are about to feel | awfully stupid. | adrian_b wrote: | No, these signals are at a low frequency of around 1.4 GHz, not | at the high frequencies of infrared or visible light. | | For such radio signals, much larger antennas are needed than | what we can expect to have on space telescopes in the near | future. | | A much more likely improvement, compared to what can be done on | Earth, could be obtained by building a large radiotelescope on | the Moon (i.e. with a large array of antennas), on its hidden | face. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-09 23:00 UTC)