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." In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies. "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial. "If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not." Other groups have previously reported seeing this type of shadows in the microwave background.

Those studies, however, did not use data from WMAP, which was designed and built specifically to study the cosmic microwave background. If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal. Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky. "Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu. "One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster environment.

View: Full Article | Source: Physorg.com

This is TOO Good!

Further indication that the BIG BANG is ONLY a THEORY, and one that is not fnding the necessary support to be considered viable.

Just wanna point out the typo in the title.

Says Big Bag

I will be posting a thread about a book which questions the whole fundament of physics as we know it today in a sec in science forum, you might like it IamSon

Yes, so let us refer back to the bible for all our scientific needs and facts and theories.

I think before we jump to conclusions we should remember that this is an institute located in Alabama.

Yeah I've never believed in the "bigbang", theres nothing at that time that could reflect the heat signatures. So why they dubbed it as the start of the universe is beyond me

Plus I wouldn't go as far as saying a 'god' make the universe either. Just we will never understand the complexity OR simple procedure that made our universe into being, as there is no way to know. Just as there is no way to know the age of the universe

Well we could always go with there was a HUGE collison between anit-matter and matter

or monkeys did it

Yeah...let's just forget they went to school for years and probably know 50x more on the subject than you or me. Nice job being ignorant. Also I have no reason to see why you made that comment about the bible too. I'm not really a person of faith, but, no one even brought it up in the first place.

that was the big bang

i agree that was very ignorant of him...

Well, we learn something new everyday. This is exactly why I hate people who speak in absolutes. I never say "The big bang IS real, no doubt" nor do I say "There's no WAY it's real".

Just say that either it seems to be true, or it doesn't. And right now, the big bang is getting a little less credit in my opinion.

But for all of you fundamentalists, this says nothing about the bible.

twas sarcasm.

Cool, I never liked the Big Bang theory anyway. There are other theories.
None of which have anything to do with the Bible by the way.

no the big bang was a HUGE collision between matter and anti-matter

but the Monkeys did it theory is starting to gain support

See this is the kind of thing that pisses me off about scientists.

I don't know anything about science but I do know that scientists no matter how smart they are can not predict what caused the universe to come into existance.

Its a ridiculous theory to suggest that based on knowledge gathered in the last 3000 years you can determine the cause of something that happened billions of years ago.

Ex.

Stupid but simple.


A man is found hanging from a light fixture dangling from a piece of rope.

How did he die?

The Bible says God put him there to punish him.

The scientists say

He stood on a piece of ice and hung himself and the ice melted and evaporated and thus he died.

Based on scientific evidence this is the most plausible theory.

Or?

Maybe he hung himself sitting on the back of a horse and then sent the horse running and killed himself.

The horse died and the species of horses became extinct.

Or

A gang of men came in and made him stand on a ladder and then pulled the ladder out from under him and he died. They then took the ladder and went away.

To say that you can predict backwards like this is just Hubris in the science community.

And I find it very ironic that they mock the Religious when their theories are no less guesswork than a priest's.

I have to agree with you, even though I know many people will jump on us for this opinion, I don't care. I just don't see how we can predict something THAT far back. SO many variables could come into play it's ridiculous.

Indeed.

I would havd thought you of all people iams would have known just what a theory is.

Did either one of you even read the whole article?

Like shadow puppets on a wall, however, these shadows would only form if all three ingredients (light, object and observer) are in the correct order. If an object casts no shadow, it might be because the light source is closer to the observer than the object. That might mean that the cosmic microwave background didn't originate at the far edges of the universe, although there are no obvious or popular alternative sources.

From the OP link.

thats what you said the first time...

read them both to see the difference

remeber monkeiesss

That is right, and all the world knows that the space centers are in California and New York, not in Texas, Alabama, and Florida right?

I think your anti-regionalism like all forms of predjudice might be causing a little blindness.

Maybe it is time for a Big Tree theory to be brought out, where universal mass and energy are increasing in expansive growth.

I think some of you are jumping the gun a bit and taking this paper to mean a lot more than it does. It suggests the possibility that something interesting is going on but I'm afraid it hasn't killed the big bang in one fell swoop. Sorry to disappoint.

I suppose one could consider a tiny plant errutpting from a seed a type of explosion.

Not all scientists agree with the theory; your statement above is generalizing.

Where do humans fit in such a mind boggling vast universe anyway? Going to the nearest star is hopeless, let alone discovering the source of the universe billions of years ago. How can such a thing be discovered from our pale sences that see only a little bit of what's really going on around us? It's like asking a fish to understand what life is like outside an aquarium. Firstly it's impossible to communicate with a fish, secondly, what would a fish do with the knowledge anyway? I think humans are to Earth and space, like what fish are to the aquarium and beyond. Humans it seems are going to have to go through some sort of dimensional evolution or something to grapple with these answers. On the flipside maybe it's so vastly simple an answer and that we look as far as we can instead of looking right in front of us for the answers.

Anywho, i for one still believe in the Big bang theory.

This would be so monumental if only it didn't relevantly support the M-Theory. And that inandofitself supports the Big Bang.

They're not disproving anything, just adjusting it.

I also think people are forgetting that people never saw this is as authentic, hence the Big Bang "Theory." Also forgetting that everything in life is but a theory. For all we know, some day gravity might be disproven. Hell...existence all together.

Captain Pedantic.... i might be.. but this one really does get to me... Its hanged... coats are hung...game is hung... people are hanged...

Are you sure? I think it's hung....

One just sounds funny.
"He hung himself"....
or
"He hanged himself"....


Yeah, I think it's hung.

Take my word for it its *Hanged* ....it is one of the most common mistakes in the English language... As in ...It is the sentence of this court that you be taken from this place to a place of execution and Hanged by the neck until dead...

From dictionary.com... Hanged


4. to put to death by suspending by the neck from a gallows, gibbet, yardarm, or the like.
5. to suspend (oneself) by the neck until dead: He hanged himself from a beam in the attic.

Well, they need to change it to hung, because "He hanged himself" sounds ridiculous.

No he's right. Its hanged. I knew it when I posted it but didn't feel like correcting it.

I know it is now, but it sounds so ridiculous.

Uh, it may just be me, but if I hear something about a man being "hung", my thoughts do not automatically go to a scaffold & noose... they tend to stray a bit farther south... Sorry, just had to throw that in there. Please return to your regularly scheduled debate on grammar and/or science...

! You have a very interesting point... I'm not sure if I ever met you before or how long you've been here, but welcome

OH FOR GODS SAKE!

So being hanged like a donkey does that make sense

All I'm saying is


"Hey, he hanged himself!"

Sounds SO ridiculous to me.

Technically you can use either hanged or hung

He just hanged himself

Did you hear about the man who hung himself

But if The Big Bang is correct, and lightyears as well the Big Bang would take an eternity to get across the entire universe wouldn't it

am I well hanged then!? or what

Any updates on the validity of the big bang theory?

Check this thread. No grammarians allowed.