The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 22    Average: 2.6/5]
35 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 6323
Rating: 2.6
Category: Science
Date: 11/20/13 10:20 AM

35 Responses to Discovery Contradicts The Big Bang Theory [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7741 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 9:55 am
    Link: Discovery Contradicts The Big Bang Theory - You mean the ``experts`` may not know it all?
  2. Profile photo of coldCanuck
    coldCanuck Male 13-17
    296 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 10:56 am
    Drawman, sorry you made a mistake there.
    I think the title should have been. "Discovery Contradicts an Assumption that Astrophysicists have been making"
    Follow it up with a description along the lines of "You mean the people who`s job it is to make assumptions and test them about space using only math, because they`re dealing with objects too far away to actually test them, have found an assumption that isn`t true or an object that isn`t as big as they think it is?"
    Because this has nothing to do with the big bang. And you`re a retard to think astrophysicists don`t make mistakes, or that the scientific method isn`t designed so that we constantly test for mistakes.
  3. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4856 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:06 am
    That`s right! They don`t know everything. What`s more, they KNOW they don`t know everything. That`s why there`s the "Theory" of Gravitation, the Big Bang "Theory", the "Theory" of Evolution, etc. Unlike, "It`s in the Bible, therefore it must be true, end of discussion."
    Note that the scientist is actually excited to find out this theory has a demonstrated inconsistency to study and learn from. Let`s see the Intelligent Design proponents behave this way (snicker!).
  4. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:08 am
    Wow Canuck, what`s your deal. Pulling out the retard card? Really???

    And I read the article, it`s definitely about the big bang. Ideally the title should be "The largest discovered structure in the universe contradicts big bang theory cosmology" because that was the actual title of the article.

    I can`t think of a more disproportionate reaction to a post like this than yours.
  5. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:10 am
    broizfam, I read the whole article and religion didn`t cross my mind once. That`s the way it should be. There`s no reason to read this and think about Sarah Palin. That`s weird.
  6. Profile photo of spanerbulb
    spanerbulb Male 30-39
    1244 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:11 am
    It`s not really about destroying the big bang idea though. It`s about accepting that our current theories can and will be subject to change as our knowledge increases. Very few things are set in stone in the word of astrophysics.
  7. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4856 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:18 am
    coldCanuck,
    It actually does involve the Big Bang since that`s what, theoretically, caused the injection and spread of matter into the known universe. The theory allows, apparently, for cosmic structures up to a certain size, given the rate of expansion of the universe and the amount of since the Big Bang, and this structure exceeds that size. (This is all assuming that I`m understanding this stuff reasonably well, of course!) There may be errors in the measurement of the structure, the analytical equations they used, the understanding of the Big Bang dynamics, or, I imagine, a number of other issues.
  8. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4856 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:21 am
    Andrew155,
    Congratulations? Don`t know what else to tell you.
  9. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4856 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:23 am
    Andrew155,
    Also, Sarah Palin? I`d MUCH rather be thinking about Halle Berry!
  10. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4856 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:27 am
    The reason, by the way, that this kind of thing makes me think about religion, Andrew, is that there are religious people out there who will point to this saying that it proves the scientists are wrong and, therefore, the Bible MUST be right. These are the people who negate everything scientists say because it`s all "theory", without having any sensible idea of what the word "theory" means in science.
  11. Profile photo of Profworm
    Profworm Male 30-39
    399 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:40 am
    The title suggests you find joy only in that this contradicts some important aspects of the current theory. Science finds joy in the fact that it just learned something new and amazing which it did not know before.
  12. Profile photo of RoboPatton
    RoboPatton Male 30-39
    2424 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:42 am
    Mind = blown... or WAS IT?!
  13. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6975 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 12:06 pm
    As Dara O`Briain put it, `Scientists know they don`t know everything. If they did they would stop.`

    Stephen Hawking said that the discovery of the Higgs Boson was a disappointment, as not finding it would have meant that everyone had got quantum mechanics wrong and they would have to start again, which would have been much more fun.

    Also because he lost a $100 bet that it would not be found in his lifetime.
  14. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7741 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    @canuck- isn`t that what I said?
    My sarcasm was aimed at the `experts` because anyone that disagrees with them is considered moronic, inferior, there to be ridiculed. The same ones that insisted the Earth was flat or that the Sun went around the Earth or that you should be put to death for questioning religion. Oh look, wrong on all counts. Sorry, all you people we killed.
  15. Profile photo of Dragonace
    Dragonace Male 30-39
    296 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    drawman61, you seem to be confusing people in the science community with religious "experts". In the field of science, having a hypothesis or theory proven wrong is exciting and a good thing, because it opens the door to new possibilities and new ideas about the universe itself. I won`t disagree that there are scientists out there who are arrogant and feel they are superior, but the overall scientific community does not see things that way.

    In science, an outcome regardless of whether it supports or negates previous held ideas, is still considered a good thing. Humanity only understands about 4% of the overall information in the entire universe, so that leaves a lot of room for mistakes/improvement/discovery/etc...
  16. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 1:36 pm
    Interesting.
  17. Profile photo of handimanner
    handimanner Male 60-69
    2095 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    There`s a larger object just found this week that is 10 billion light years across. Including LQC and "The Great Wall" it becomes obvious that the universe is full of large clusters. I disagree that this nullifies the big bang theory per se. Hawkins and others have theorized that the bang could have been a series of bubbles instead of one mass event.
  18. Profile photo of MikeyNiv
    MikeyNiv Male 18-29
    697 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 1:52 pm
    bloody experts what have they ever done for us eh
  19. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6975 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 2:20 pm
    `...the `experts` because anyone that disagrees with them is considered moronic, inferior, there to be ridiculed.`

    Well, if you are completely unqualified and uninformed and disagree with the concensus of experts in any field then you would expect that.
  20. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 4:01 pm
    Wow, drawman. As many here have pointed out, you seem to have really missed the point of science. Also, no actual expert has claimed to know everything about cosmology. If you want to make a claim that challenges the consensus of "the experts", by all means make it. Just make sure to have some solid evidence to back it up! Otherwise, prepare to be promptly dismissed.

    As an astrophysics student myself, i can tell you, this is really cool! This, if it checks out, means that the Big Bang theory will have to be changed, or, less likely, an entirely new theory will have to be formulated! Exciting times indeed!

    @coldCanuck: Sorry to say, it`s not actually a mistake. This really does challenge the Big Bang Theory.
  21. Profile photo of 747Pilot
    747Pilot Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 4:03 pm
    imagine if we could just click our heels, or say a word, and be anywhere in the entire creation?
  22. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Here is a video from Sixty Symbols about this structure. (for the nerdy among us)

    Here
  23. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    If you watch the vid I just left on the previous comment, at the end they explain how this could happen.

    It does NOT CONTRADICT the big bag theory. It could be the result of a small fluctuation during the initial expansion of the universe, which was magnified during said expansion.

    Still interesting tho.
  24. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 30-39
    2588 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 4:48 pm
    La la la God did it la la la I can`t hear you
  25. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 5:44 pm
    this is kind of dumb and here is why:

    The cosmological principle simply asserts that the universe can be construed as "smooth" and "similar everywhere"* at large scales, it doesn`t mean you`ll never find a clump, specially if you look closely enough at a little spot in it. All they`ve found is a body large enough that the this little zit in an otherwise smooth universe, is well, quite bigger than all the other protrusions in it. None of which contradicts the body of work of cosmology, which operates under the approximate assumption that it`s pretty smooth, after all.

    *the correct terms are "homogeneous and isotropic", but all they mean is that taking a sample of the universe you can calculate the rest, because "it`s all very similar, in all directions".

    There, a daily dose of science.

    PS. For those who don`t remember, I`m a physicist.
  26. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    jendrian - It is hardly a pimple. It is approx 1/3 the size of the observable UNIVERSE! Quite large.
  27. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32834 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm
    It`s not really about destroying the big bang idea though.
    I agree @spannerbulb! The BB Theory is not set in stone, it could (in theory) adapt to meet this new challenge... or be replaced by a better theory! Either way is good!

    Mind = blown... or WAS IT?!
    @RoboPatton: You have "Schrodinger`s Brain"? = lolz!

    @MikeyNiv: They built the aqueduct...

    The comments there were pretty good too!

    Measuring things like "The Universe" is an extremely difficult task! A few bumps in the road are to be expected, eh?
  28. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 7:57 pm

    PS. For those who don`t remember, I`m a physicist.

    And 747pilot is a real 747 pilot.

    Actually, I will believe that a "poo brained horse" is a physicist long before I would believe 747pilot holds the lives of hundreds of people in his hands on a daily basis by actually flying 747 jets.








  29. Profile photo of CodeJockey
    CodeJockey Male 40-49
    5611 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 8:09 pm
    jendrian, for about a decade (ever since hearing the idea that all galaxies have a super massive black hole,) I`ve been considering the idea of the particle field being mass clusters trying to (re)unite into one massive mega galaxy.

    I was expecting to hear of a nearby mega galaxy, not a super cluster but, since that`s what we got, I don`t see how this exactly contradicts/negates the idea of a big bang. It seems to support it.

    "The last men out should be found nearest to the exit."
    To me, seems logical a mega cluster of mega galaxies is what one should expect to find nearest to the center of the particle field.
  30. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    @CodeJockey: Yeah, what we could be looking at is the beginning of the big crunch, further supporting the idea, instead of denying it
  31. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    November 20, 2013 at 11:55 pm
    The cosmological principle states that the Universe is essentially the same in any particular region of SPACE. It does NOT, however, state that the Universe is the same at every era of TIME since its origin. Due to the finite speed of light, these quasars are seen by us as they were when the Universe was less than half its current age. If we could see what our own local cluster looked like 8 billion years ago, it would probably look quite similar to a small region of this structure. The black holes at the center of our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy would be gobbling up matter and spewing out gamma and X-rays so that an observer 8 billion LY away would see them as quasars.

    The finite speed of light makes the cosmological principal pretty much impossible to prove, because the farther out we look in space, the farther back we look in time. We are comparing our region of the Universe as it is now to distant regions that are much younger.
  32. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32834 posts
    November 21, 2013 at 7:22 am
    VV Good point @OldOllie! What those things look like now is anybody`s guess.

    I`ve often thought that "Dark Energy" is just the momentum (velocity) of the objects in the universe, eh? I cannot believe no one else has thought of that though!!

    "Dark Matter" is another thing entirely, since it has gravity...
  33. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    November 21, 2013 at 8:01 am
    @turdburglar: you can choose to believe whatever you want, I am a physicist who happens to like Adventure Time and laughed a lot at that episode. What just because I work in science I have to always be serious?
  34. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4856 posts
    November 21, 2013 at 5:16 pm
    @jendrian,
    I`m a Gynecologist. I don`t always have to be a...never mind.
    You just go ahead and have your fun!
  35. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    November 21, 2013 at 10:13 pm
    I don`t see how this proves or disproves the Big Bang or what it even has to do with it.

    Are they saying that the theoretical present size of the ever-expanding outer edge of the known universe as a result of the Big Bang is not big enough to accommodate something of this size?

Leave a Reply