PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Mapping the Early Universe in 3 ...



Fraser
2004-Nov-12, 04:44 PM
SUMMARY: American and Australian researchers are working on a method to develop a 3-dimensional map that will show how the Universe evolved during its first billion years. Unlike the map of cosmic background radiation, which is our current first look at the Universe, their method uses the radiation from early clouds of neutral hydrogen atoms. The first stars to ignite should have blown out bubbles of open space inside these clouds, and it's these bubbles that the astronomers should be able to see in the radio spectrum.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

antoniseb
2004-Nov-12, 04:55 PM
This is something that the SKA story a couple months ago pointed out. The LOFAR and SKA arrays will make these measurements possible. It will be interesting to see the process of proto-galaxy formation as it happened. I expect that within a century, we'll have the capability of observing turbulance in individual protogalactic clouds. For now, all we can measure is size, place, and density.

StarLab
2004-Nov-12, 05:16 PM
Will this have the same value and impact as the COBE measurements?

antoniseb
2004-Nov-12, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by StarLab@Nov 12 2004, 05:16 PM
Will this have the same value and impact as the COBE measurements?
It really depends on how you measure value and impact, but in my estimation, this will be a huge amount of work, but will so far surpass COBE, WMAP, and the upcoming ESA PLANCK results that they will be regarded merely as useful stepping stones along the way.

Duane
2004-Nov-12, 06:29 PM
It should also resolve. many of todays questions/doubt about the big bang theory, redshift as a distance determinor, and quasar formation, to name a few.

Of course, with science being the way it is, it will also probably raise as many or more questions than it answers.

spacepunk
2004-Nov-13, 01:44 AM
American and Australian researchers are working on a method to develop a 3-dimensional map that will show how the Universe evolved during its first billion years.

How would these maps compare to the Hayden Planetarium 3D maps?

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org./

antoniseb
2004-Nov-13, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by spacepunk@Nov 13 2004, 01:44 AM
How would these maps compare to the Hayden Planetarium 3D maps?
The Hayden Planetarium has several 3D maps from different research efforts. The biggest scale maps show the distribution of galaxies and quasars going back quite a way, but only covering things that we can see in optical light.

This effort will make a 3D map of the univerese before the first stars, which will tell us how the first stars and galaxies formed out of the almost uniform post-big-bang medium seen by COBE, WMAP, and other CMB efforts.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-13, 05:48 PM
An interesting story about plans to use "radiation from early clouds of neutral hydrogen atoms" to study the early Universe.

Do they know the early Universe contained "clouds of neutral hydrogen atoms" rather than nuclear material compressed into neutron stars or black holes?

Isn't highly compressed nuclear matter observed at the cores of galaxies?

Have they shown that this is secondary?

Have they considered the possibility of neutron stars at the cores of ordinary stars?

I recommend more effort be devoted to understanding the solar system and the star at its core.

Once that problem is solved, we can reasonably move outward toward an understanding of galaxies, Universes, etc.


With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Nov-13, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Nov 13 2004, 05:48 PM
Isn't highly compressed nuclear matter observed at the cores of galaxies?
If you read carefully, you'll see that this study is intending to examine the time from 380,000 years after the big bang to about the time of the formation of the first stars, galaxies, or supermassive black holes, whichever came first. So, no, they don't expect to find compressed nuclear matter back then, nor would this method enable them to see it.

This method works because the photons are so low energy that nothing common in the universe stops them.

Concerning your note about stopping all other science until the sun is completely understood seems like a silly approach. We might as well say that we shouldn't study the Sun or Earth until we fully understand the food we eat. We need to go for the low hanging fruit in every endeavor of science. Here's a new really juicy one.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-14, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Nov 13 2004, 06:45 PM
Concerning your note about stopping all other science until the sun is completely understood seems like a silly approach.
Come on, Anton.

I did not suggest "stopping all other science until the sun is completely understood."

However, understanding the Sun is far more important to mankind than developing a 3-D map of how the Universe evolved during its first billion years.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

damienpaul
2004-Nov-14, 06:27 AM
at the risk of sounding like a hopelessly naive overtired tacher, how?

alainprice
2004-Nov-14, 08:59 AM
NO! *that is my poinion*

It does not mattyer if we understand the inner workings of the sun. What is more important is understanding our true origin(s).

antoniseb
2004-Nov-14, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Nov 14 2004, 05:47 AM
I did not suggest "stopping all other science until the sun is completely understood."
How else should I have interpreted this line:

Once that problem is solved, we can reasonably move outward toward an understanding of galaxies, Universes, etc.
At what level does it have to be understood before you think that there's enough value in understanding more distant parts of the cosmic puzzle? Do you think mankind collectively incapable of studying both at the same time? Are you covetting the funding going into the SKA and LOFAR arrays and giant optical telescopes, thinking that it should instead be spent on solar corona probes and giant anti-neutrino detectors? I ask these questions rhetorically, because in spite of your above comment, I think you believe in doing science wherever it presents itself.

Janice
2004-Nov-15, 01:19 AM
:( At the risk of sounding like the confused school girl I am, I really don't know what you people are talking about. :huh:

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-15, 04:53 AM
Nor do we, Janice.

My point is that we should selectively invest our time and efforts on problems that seem likely to have the greatest benefit for mankind.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu~om