Science Forums
Advanced search
User Name
Password

Science Social Network
home    members    help/rules    who is online    contact   

Go Back   Science Forums > Science News > Astronomy news
Become a science forums sponsor today
Comment
 
LinkBack Article Tools
Published by EWright 09-05-2006
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.

"Based on all that we know about radiation sources and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn't expect to see this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation."

Predicted as early as 1948 and discovered in 1965, the cosmic microwave background is a faint glow of weak radiation that apparently permeates the universe. Because it is seen coming from every direction in nearly uniform power and frequency, cosmologists theorized that the microwave background is afterglow radiation left over by the Big Bang that created the universe.

If that were the case, the background microwave radiation reaching Earth today would have traveled billions of light years through space from the furthest edges of the universe.

Galaxy clusters are the largest organized structures in the universe. Each cluster can contain hundreds of galaxies like the Milky Way, each with billions of stars. The gravity created at the center of some clusters traps gas that is hot enough to emit X-rays.

This gas is also hot enough to lose its electrons (or ionize), filling millions of cubic light years of space inside the galactic clusters with swarming clouds of free electrons. It is these free electrons which bump into and interact with individual photons of microwave radiation, deflecting them away from their original paths and creating the shadowing effect. This shadowing effect was first predicted in 1969 by the Russian scientists Rashid Sunyaev and Yakov Zel'dovich.

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.

The WMAP dataset is available to the public and other scientists are already testing the UAH group's results, Lieu said, although no one has yet reported finding any flaws in their analysis.

Just over a year ago Lieu and Dr. Jonathan Mittaz, a UAH research associate, published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.

Reference: Lieu, Mittaz and Shuang-Nan Zhang, UAH, "The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters: A comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed decrement," Astrophysical Journal, Sept. 1, 2006, Vol. 648, No. 1, p. 176

Source: University Of Alabama In Huntsville
  #1  
By Jay-qu on 09-05-2006
Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

thats really interesting to hear.. I wonder whats really going on out there
Reply With Quote
  #2  
By Mercedes Benzene on 09-05-2006
Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

Awww... and just when the Big Band theory got interesting....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
By Tormod on 09-05-2006
Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

This is a very interesting find. However, it will need to stand up to scrutiny. It will be exciting to see if scientists can finally cast some light on the big bang theory!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
By infamous on 09-05-2006
Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

Could it be that we are seeing the afterglow of more than one BANG? Consider this Hypothesis: The Universe is infinite and eternal with an infinite number of smaller bangs, for lack of a better word. Viewing the universe from our point in time, we would see different shapes and ranges of shadows with the overall effect being a rather homogenous cosmic background radiation. My own personal suspicion is that black holes have a limit on how massive they can grow. Sometime in our distant past, an enormous black hole exploded giving us the impression that it was a universal event when in fact, it was only local. When one defines the universe as infinite, 13.7 billion light years can then be understood as only local..............Infy
Last edited by infamous; 09-13-2006 at 10:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
By Jay-qu on 09-05-2006
Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

interesting thoughts infy, I was thinking along a slightly different line.. but I would need more info about the data from the experiment to bring it all together. I need more info than "Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not" just that..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
By Zythryn on 09-05-2006
Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

Fascinating! I look forward to hearing about further studies and confirmation of these findings.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
By EWright on 09-05-2006
Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

Quote:
Originally Posted by infamous
Could it be that we are seeing the afterglow of more than one BANG? Consider this Hypothesis: The Universe is infinite and eternal with an infinite number of smaller bangs, for lack of a better word. Viewing the universe from our point in time, we would see different shapes and ranges of shadows with the overall effect being a rather homogenous cosmic background radiation. My own personal suspicion is that black holes have a limit on how massive they can grow. Sometime in our distant past, an enormous black hole exploded giving us the impression that it was a universal event when in fact, it was only local. When one defines the universe as infinite, 3.7 billion light years can then be understood as only local..............Infy
Good thoughts Infy... the problem I see with this is the uniformity in the CMB to such a flat degree and the issue that the source of other "bangs" would have to fill in the X-ray shadows at precisely the right degree for them not to be detectable by such a precission instrument.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
By learnin to learn on 09-06-2006
Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

that is astronomical! nice hypothesis infy! what if it were true?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
By cwes99_03 on 09-07-2006
Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

OK, I can think of a couple of more reasons than just the cluster itself produces a near identical amount of radiation as is seen everywhere else.

1) the radiation's origin is so far beyond the cluster that the cluster does not act like an obstruction to it (like a large light source and a tiny fly hovering half way between it and your eye, you won't see the fly or any shadow it might cast.

2) has anyone taken gravitational lensing into account for these things? They are after all pretty massive.
Reply With Quote
Comment

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Article Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Article Article Starter Category Comments Last Post
Intergalactic Spores orbsycli Space 28 06-24-2007 12:43 AM
Does a shadow have mass? Zohaar818 Astronomy and Cosmology 8 05-25-2005 06:00 PM
Einstein's Special Relativity Fails? Mac Physics and Mathematics 264 05-20-2005 08:11 PM
test orbsycli Test forum 1 03-03-2005 11:41 AM
Test 3 James Putnam Test forum 12 02-24-2005 10:18 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:58 PM.

Hypography?

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

Share the love!

Please add more science to your life. Use our RSS feeds on your blog, your portal, or your favorite feedreader!

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 ©2008, Crawlability, Inc. Copyright © 2000-2008 Hypography
Part of the Hypography - Science for Everyone Network
Powered by GARS © 2005-2008