Baby Universe pictures It's so cute!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The image above is based on 15 months of data from the Planck satellite. It is a cleaned up image in that the Milky Way has been subtracted, as have all other known radio sources.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-planck-reveals-universe.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The increased accuracy of the Planck and the 15 months of observation has added about 80 million years to the age of the Universe(as we know it), changed slightly the known makeup of the Universe, revealed some alarmingly large asymmetries and indicate we still have a lot to learn about the beginning of our Universe.

Questions:

1. What do you think of the rather large cool and hot spots. They are larger than our current theories say they should be(ie the Universe was not as homogeneous as we thought).

2. What do you think about the increasingly accurate measurement of the ratios of the makeup of the Universe(this IS the most accurate measurement of this characteristic of our Universe, ever). The measurement before Planck: Matter=4.5% Dark matter 22.7% Dark Energy=72.8% After Planck M=4.9% DM=26.8% DE=68.3%

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Planck would've been proud.

I just don't understand why we can still see those anisotropies billions of years after. You would think that by the time those CMB photons reach your detector, any information from the past would be scrambled beyond recognition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Looks pretty scrambled to me. But what would happen to them on their journey?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I think all the photons would be evenly stretched, rendering the CMB free of any anisotropies, no?

 

Evenly stretched - yes. However, whatever differences there were at the start, they remained, so the anisotropies show up.

 

But if the anisotropies show up, then the photons are not evenly stretched, right?

 

I'm still not following this. How does the distending of individual photons affect a pixelated field of view that spans the full sky?

And how is this effect any different than the imagery from any other very distant object, which looks similar to the imagery composed by photons from nearby objects?

 

tashja

It isn't the photons that are being stretched, it is the space between us and where they were emitted that has been stretched. Any characteristic they had when they were emitted is still there, just stretched into lower frequencies. The CMB is at about 3 meters, and equivalent to a temperature of 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK. So if the anisotropies and the other densities are all 3 meters and 2.7 degrees, how can they tell them apart when they get here unless the anisotropies show a different temperature and wavelength?

 

pretty it's going to be a big boy.

I wonder if this data will be able to proof or disproof the darkflow

 

tashja

The differences that existed before the wavelength changed are still there(they were very, very small differences to begin with). The light does not get changed, the space it traveled through changed, the light differences are the same, just centered around a different frequency/wavelength). The anisotropies are just small variations in the temperature and density and are visible even though the light has been stretched(the stretching is uniform, but the differences were there before the light got stretched, so the differences are there after the uniform stretching. A high energy photon and a photon of slightly less energy still have higher and lower energies after both are stretched exactly the same amount). Light does not get old(it experiences no time), it does not change(the space it travels through changes), it does not lose information, it does not fade, it does not interfere between photons, it does not homogenize or blur together. The light contains every bit of information(say anisotropies)it contained when it was emitted, it is just visible to us at a lower frequency/longer wavelength. Stretching does not change that, as high, low and middle energies are all stretched the exact same amount(having travelled the exact same distance through expanding space)so the differences are still the same.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

orcot

It certainly indicates that there were bigger "clumps" at the beginning than we thought possible, leading to bigger concentrations of matter than we thought possible. A recent discovery of huge BHs(a 2 billion solar mass Quasar over 10 billion years ago as well as multiple Quasar "swarms")early in the Universe's history indicate there is much more to learn.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The coloured background indicates the peaks and troughs in the occurrence of quasars at the distance of the LQG. Darker colours indicate more quasars, lighter colours indicate fewer quasars. The LQG is clearly seen as a long chain of peaks indicated by black circles. (The red crosses mark the positions of quasars in a different and smaller LQG). The horizontal and vertical axes represent right ascension and declination, the celestial equivalent of longitude and latitude. The map covers around 29.4 by 24 degrees on the sky, indicating the huge scale of the newly discovered structure."

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-astronomers-largest-universe.html

"The quasar that has just been found, named ULAS J1120+0641, is seen as it was only 770 million years after the Big Bang (redshift 7.1). It took 12.9 billion years for its light to reach us.
These observations showed that the mass of the black hole at the centre of ULAS J1120+0641 is about two billion times that of the Sun. This very high mass is hard to explain so early on after the Big Bang. Current theories for the growth of supermassive black holes predict a slow build-up in mass as the compact object pulls in matter from its surroundings."

http://phys.org/news/2011-06-astronomers-universe-distant-quasar.html#nRlv

Personally, I think there were many stellar and intermediate sized BHs(as well as sub-stellar sized ones, most of which evaporated due to Hawking Radiation)created even before stars existed in the dense early Universe(and especially in these denser "clumps"). These BHs would have been formed directly from mass, not as the result of stellar evolution. In the process of matter forming galaxies these BHs would tend to make contact and merge, creating huge supermassive BHs that then pulled mass into organized galaxies(and quasars are the result of that process). It's like the chicken and the egg, which came first, the BH or the galaxy it is in. I think BHs came first just from the density, then the galaxies formed around these supermassive holes. Of course, all these processes(BH formation from density, BH merging, stellar formation, galaxy formation and then BH growth by accretion)were happening at the same time, so each BH history will be slightly different, leading to some galaxies having smaller central BHs, some larger and some that form Quasars while the majority do not. The early Universe was a very violent and complicated era, not at all like the calmer, gentler Universe we see today.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

clearly a bizar epoch, some of these blackholes must have been very small to subcomb to hawkings radiation. Still it couldn't be all that unfriendly The star HD 140283 (at a 190 LY from us) has a estimated age older then the universe(this is impossible) with a error margin 0.06 billion years this means it should have formed in the the first 20 million years of the big bang (star age 1.45E9 error 0.06 max age 1.5E9(older then universe revised to 1.37E9(age universe) to 1.35E9 years ago meaning it formed in the first 20 million year) making it a first generation star with 1% heavy metals (witch is odd) imagen if this planet or one closly resembling it has any planets makes me think of Fermi's paradox

 

Presumably stars with high mass.

The Epoch of Very Massive Stars

The earliest stages of heavy element formation in the Galaxy were dominated by stars with masses ten times that of the Sun or more, and lifetimes of a few million years or less. These supermassive stars produced small amounts of all the elements, but their presence can be identified most clearly by excesses of elements like strontium, yttrium and zirconium. Released by supernovae and absorbed by new star-forming clouds, these elements were incorporated into the next generation of stars.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milkyway-00b.html

 

Captain Kremmen

What you say is true, but dominated does not mean that the first stars were exclusively large, there were likely many smaller stars, some of which are still around. The "old" star in question may or may not date from the era it's metal content indicates, it may be a younger star that just happened to form from an unenriched cloud of gas, it happens, not all gas clouds get exactly the same enrichment and a few get no enrichment at all. Even if it is relatively ancient it may have formed from a cloud that was not yet in an enriched area of that era. In addition, the Universe is older than we thought by about 100 million years, moving this star's possible birthday to well within the known age of the Universe. It's not the usual star, but it isn't an impossible one.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's mass couldn't be that high it's still shining aftheral It's still a interesting star that tells us something abouth the early (20 million years of the universe) there could have been planets

 

orcot

Actually, low metals in a star indicates it also has no planets. It is the "metals"(everything heavier than Helium)that make up the planets. It will also have no gas giant planets, no icy comets, no substance other than Hydrogen and Helium gas with a trace amount of Lithium.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

For me the most intriguing result is the asymmetry between the 2 hemispheres in the CMB. It seems that in one part of the sky the amplitude of the fluctuations (how bright the spots in the CMB are) is bigger than in the opposite side. Blue spots are cold regions and red spots are hot regions. The brighter a red spot is, the hotter it is. I'm not by any means an expert on the matter, but it seems to me that this so-called "lopsided universe" seems to hint at a strange shape for the universe (i think it would rule out the hypersphere for example).

 

It's more of a low probability research shows that up to 25% the metals like our sun shouldn't be a problem this star has only less then 1% of our suns metals so the changes of it having a planet are probably extremely small but if these stars only occur 1 in a million and a other 1 in a million has planets then out of a universe of the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in their would still be a 100 million eart like planetsaround these stars (if the closest one is only 190LY away they probably occur more then 1 in a million the later estimate (planet) is anyones gues

 

I pray that members of the Multiverse cult don't get any ideas.