View Full Version : Boomerang

04-28-2000, 06:21 PM
The Boomerang experiment also confirms that all the matter we can see from germs to galaxy clusters accounts for only a small fraction of the universe.

Ya think?


04-28-2000, 06:30 PM

04-28-2000, 06:48 PM
I saw the very tail end of a news report that the lumps expected appear in the cosmic background radiation had been found.

I'm sort of curious what it means, or even if it was factual. Know anything about it wizzywig? http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif

04-28-2000, 07:52 PM

BOOMERanG (Balloon Observations Of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation ANd Geophysics) is an instrument designed to measure "anisotropies" in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Isotropic means "identical in all directions." Anisotropic means "having properties that differ according to the direction of measurement."

I'm not sure, but I think the statement that "the Boomerang experiment also confirms that all the matter we can see ... accounts for only a small fraction of the universe" refers to the fact that scientists have not found sufficient matter in the universe to close the universe. It appears that it will keep expanding and never collapse in a future "Big Crunch." If there is a lot of "missing matter" yet to be discovered, then the universe may be closed--but where is it hiding?

Conor, here's a passage from the book I'm working on that may (or may not) shed some light on your question re: the "lumpiness" of the universe:

In 1992, a team of astrophysicists tabulated over 400 million temperature measurements made by NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), discovering faint fluctuations in the background microwave radiation of the universe--the lingering echo of the Big Bang. These fluctuations--"ripples in the fabric of space-time," as they were called by research director George Smoot (astrophysicist, U.C. Berkeley)--explain how galaxies formed and clustered together out of the initially smooth and uniform Big Bang. Physicist Steven Hawking called the COBE discovery "the discovery of the century, if not of all time," and Smoot said, "It's like looking at God." Astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge quipped that his fellow astronomers had all joined "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang."

What many people don't realize is that the Big Bang is not something that happened billions of years ago. It is still happening now. The universe is still expanding, being propelled apart by the force of the initial blast. We are living inside the most massive explosion there ever was. The sheer size and force of the Big Bang aside, this was no ordinary explosion, in which material was blasted outwards into empty space. Rather, the Big Bang actually created space and time. At the moment of the Big Bang, everything that is--matter/energy, the three geometric dimensions of space, and the fourth dimension of time--blossomed forth from a "quantum fluctuation" the size of a geometric point, swelling at the speed of light.

Physicists and cosmologists are amazed that such a violent event as the Big Bang could have been so delicately, precisely balanced. In God and the New Physics, Paul Davies observes,

Had the Big Bang been weaker, the cosmos would have soon fallen back on itself in a big crunch. One the other hand, had it been stronger, the cosmic material would have dispersed so rapidly that galaxies would not have formed. Either way, the observed structure of the universe seems to depend very sensitively on the precise matching of explosive vigour to gravitating power. ...
Had the explosion differed in strength at the outset by only one part in 10^<font size = 1>60</font> [that's the number 1 followed by 60 zeros], the universe we now perceive would not exist. To give some meaning to these numbers, suppose you wanted to fire a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away. Your aim would have to be accurate to that same part in 10^<font size = 1>60</font> . ...

The gravitational arrangement of the universe is bafflingly regular and uniform. There seems to be no obvious reason why the universe did not go berserk, expanding in a chaotic and uncoordinated way, producing enormous black holes. Channeling the explosive violence into such a regular and organized pattern of motion seems like a miracle.
[Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), pp. 179,181.]


04-28-2000, 08:25 PM
Thanks for clearing that up. I read the article on it, it is truly amazing. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif


04-29-2000, 02:33 AM
Thanks, but I think they just found something new. I didn't really catch the news bit, but they found something. Sorry for not being able to elaborate at all. I'll just keep my eyes open.

"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

Zoom Rabbit
04-29-2000, 07:08 AM
Zoomer's interest is piqued!

I have always been of the opinion that our 'missing mass' was to be found in the higher and lower domains that we call heaven and hell. I mean, if it's all one interconnected universe...then everything effects everything else, and I can't conceive why these rules would apply to just the physical plane on which we exist.

One could argue that such dimensions were non-physical, and therefore of no effect on the physical universe...but I would point out that that argument effectively eliminates all our religions, since no effect means no effect. Hah? In order for souls (being energy, which equates mass) to cross from one plane to the next, for miracles to be effected on this level, there has to be at least the viability for physical interaction between the two. This means a connected universe...and gravitation is just one force that must be equalized.

So the universe is really, really big! <font size=1>And I'm not even gonna get into the possibility of alternate universes and how they would have to coexist gravitationally...</font>

Did someone say ice cream? Post over!

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

04-29-2000, 03:58 PM
Where does the idea come from that souls are made of energy? On what do you base this belief/assumption? I'm not trying to challenge you. I'm trying to become educated on the source of what I have always thought was an untenable NewAge/theosophist concept, that the soul is made of energy.

Energy is easily detectable, measurable, quantifiable. As you note, energy = matter. Souls are impossible to detect, measure, and quantify by scientific methods; there is no evidence that the soul has any mass. It seems obvious to me that whatever the soul is composed of, it is not something that we understand as well as we understand energy and matter.


04-29-2000, 04:14 PM
Conor and muchafraid, maybe this is what you're thinking of:

Minneapolis Star Tribune; 04-27-2000

Telescope captures images of early universe // The images confirm one major prediction of the leading theory of the birth of the universe but do not reveal another crucial feature that scientists had expected.

Scientists on Wednesday released the clearest pictures yet taken of the infant universe, before stars and galaxies had formed and when space was filled with hot, turbulent gases.

The images confirm one major prediction of the leading theory of the birth of the universe but do not reveal another crucial feature that scientists had hoped would buttress that theory.

It is uncertain how radical a revision, if any, will be required to account for the new evidence.

The images - actually imprints of sound waves, or ripples - were produced using a balloon-borne telescope named Boomerang by a multinational collaboration led by Andrew Lange of the California Institute of Technology and Paolo de Bernardis of the University of Rome. The images, which were released at a NASA news briefing Wednesday, are being published today in the journal Nature.

``They're essentially snapshots of the universe when it was 300, 000 years old,'' said Dr. Wayne Hu, a cosmologist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., who wrote a commentary on the results in Nature.

In trying to understand how the universe came about in what scientists think was a giant explosion, called the Big Bang, some 13 billion years ago, the researchers focus on ripples, or variations, in the temperature of the primordial gas. These can be used to gauge the large-scale geometry and contents of the universe.

The size of the ripples observed by the Boomerang experiment indicates that the universe contains just the right amount of matter and energy to make space ``flat'' in astronomical terms - meaning that the apparent size of distant objects is determined by the ordinary law of perspective, rather than appearing shrunken or magnified - just as predicted by the reigning theory of how the Big Bang got started, which is called inflation.

``Inflation . . . passed its first, very important test,'' said Dr. Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago.

But a number of cosmologists were surprised by what the new images did not reveal: fainter, smaller ripples on the sky.

Just as an organ pipe resonates with its main note and higher harmonics, the early universe should have contained the smaller ripples, according to inflationary theory, but Boomerang's images did not produce clear evidence of the smaller ripples.

Lange cautioned that the team was presenting only 5 to 10 percent of its data in the Nature paper and that the theoretical implications were still subject to revision. But cosmologists said that if the higher harmonics did not eventually emerge clearly from the data, all bets would be off.

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, the gravity of all matter and energy in the universe can warp space and bend light rays. Generally speaking, this means that initially parallel light rays eventually cross or diverge. Only in a ``flat'' universe, containing a precisely defined amount of matter and energy, do the rays remain parallel.

That precise amount is predicted by inflation, a theory first proposed in 1980 by Dr. Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Inflation predicts that during the Big Bang a tiny mote of space became drastically stretched by fields of energy. Minute fluctuations in the energy in different places would eventually have generated sound waves, or ripples, in the primordial gases.

Radiation, or light, emitted from those gases in the early universe arrive billions of years later at Earth, still retaining the imprint of the sound waves. Their apparent sizes on the sky give a measure of whether the radiation from them traveled on straight or curved lines, giving a gauge of cosmic geometry, as if an optician was trying to estimate the power of a lens by measuring the size of newsprint seen through it.

Author not available, Telescope captures images of early universe // The images confirm one major prediction of the leading theory of the birth of the universe but do not reveal another crucial feature that scientists, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 04-27-2000, pp 12A.


Zoom Rabbit
04-29-2000, 06:04 PM
Fair question, Wiz. I'll try to answer it... http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif

I guess it's because the soul and the physical plane interact that I feel it must have an energy component...or more properly, that it is associated energy. Just as gravitational force is 'hidden' in a brick sitting on a table, I feel that the soul is associated with the physical body the same way. The energy stored in the brick is indetectable, not recognizeable as energy at all but mass in an otherwise inert brick. When we remove the table, though, the force suddenly manifests itself as energy. I'm not saying that I think the soul and body relationship is the same phenomenon (I think it's called 'potential energy,' and our body has this as well, just like any physical object)...just a similar principle in action.

One universe, all connected. Each thing affecting everything else. Substance equals mass, equals energy, with correlating states on the astral plane. You see, I'm trying to apply principles we see in the observeable universe to theoretical realms of being currently beyond our understanding. A flawed approach? Hmmm...maybe. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif

I have another reason to think that my soul is energy, and it's a simple one: I can feel it. This may be why so many new agers think the same; meditation brings an awareness of subtle energies. I'm not talking about the flowing kundalini-type stuff, which is the body's own electric system in play (not to be confused with the soul proper!) What the kabbalists call the 'Godhead' is supposed to be the ultimate residence of the soul, and it is quite energetic indeed. I realize this bark-eating hippy nonsense might not be of much help ( http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif), but it is, nevertheless, where these people are getting the notion.

I could, obviously, be wrong. Whether my soul is made of energy, thought, foam rubber or chocolate cake, I know it's real...and it's the most cherished gift God ever gave me. (Duh! Otherwise I wouldn't be here!) http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[This message has been edited by Zoom Rabbit (edited April 29, 2000).]

04-30-2000, 03:35 AM
I thought your theory was the most oddball nonsense I've ever heard in my life, but in a way it makes sense. CLEARLY our soul is not energy. We can detect energy. But what energy does is allow for an interaction with mass, and I believe it would be hard to doubt the soul does not interact with our body. So, the fact that you say our soul is energy is completely unsupported (feeling it hardly a reason), but it does have to react with matter and must therefor have a means such as energy. What I found interesting was when you mentioned the brick and gravity. Perhaps gravity is a reasonable comparison to the soul. Gravity doesn't technically "exist", but it is a consequence of existence. Maybe when the logical construct of our brain reaches a certain stage this causes a "realization" of the soul. This, however, doesn't explain how the soul could be eternal. Just a thought. Please, don't think I believe any of this http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif, I just wanted to walk a few seconds in your shoes.

And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

04-30-2000, 04:35 AM
Thanks again wiz. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif


Zoom Rabbit
04-30-2000, 05:34 AM
Well, TAF, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Just remember that we're each doing the best with what we have to resolve these questions for ourselves. You're talking to a cook about physics, after all... http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif

Perhaps my science there was imprecise. I do not think that my soul is energy in the same way that my nervous system manifests energy; TAF nailed it on the head--it is its mere existance that I'm focusing on, which requires some state of being in order to interact with the physical body. This 'being' (for lack of a better term) would have the same kind of non-physical yet entirely real nature that energy, and especially gravity have. That was what I meant! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif

Zoom Rabbit is now ready to make a correlation with matters we've discussed in the past. Hang on. The soul's existance is similar to that of gravity; while gravity is the consequence of physical existance, the soul is the consequence of perception (having a point of view being the primary indicating factor in life, or spiritual existance.)

This would mean, of course, that every living thing in the universe has a soul, right down to the simplest amoeba. I'm sorry. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif

<font size=1>Of course, who says you have to take someone named 'Zoom Rabbit' seriously? I certainly wouldn't!</font>

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

04-30-2000, 06:06 AM
QUOTES that somehow seemed appropriate right now...

"That's what I like so much about you, John. Your concern with soul even when you must know you do not have a soul."

"I do not know I have no soul. I rather think I have. It makes sense to say that every intelligence has a soul."

"Whatever a soul may be," said the Pope.

"Yes, whatever a soul may be."



The visitor shrugged. ... "If I thought I had such a thing as a soul, and that there was an angry God in Heaven, I might agree with you."

Abbot Zerchi smiled thinly. "You don't have a soul, Doctor. You are a soul. You have a body, temporarily."

The visitor laughed politely. "A semantic confusion."

"True. But which of us is confused? Are you sure?"

WALTER M. MILLER, JR., A Canticle for Leibowitz


[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 30, 2000).]

05-01-2000, 05:06 AM
Very interesting...

God gave me a soul.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 -
and the dust returns to ground it came from, and spirit returns to God who gave it.


05-01-2000, 05:11 AM
Good point!


Zoom Rabbit
05-01-2000, 05:32 AM
Agreed. That I am is a pretty amazing thing...but that I know it, that's the miracle.

But it was someone else (a Frenchman, I think) who already said, 'I think therefore I am.' Just add on there, '--because God thinks I am,' and we'll have it all together.


05-01-2000, 03:17 PM
All to true. It is amazing. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif


05-01-2000, 03:42 PM
His name was Rene' Descartes Zoom. He was most likely the first man to ever attack the mind/body/existence problem logically. He doubted everything except that to which could follow from the very premise you stated - "I think therefore I am." His dualist philosophy had one very major hole - it never explained how the body and soul interact. He had it hard, trying to prove something intangible (the soul) as well as explaining how it could interact with the body. Poor guy never did reach his goal, which is why there are more physicalist philosophers than dualists.

And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

Zoom Rabbit
05-01-2000, 06:12 PM
Not to mention the growing problem of trying to pass such barbarism as the dualling tradition off in French society as social sensibilities evolved...

(That was a joke.)


Pink Monkey
05-01-2000, 06:15 PM
Aren't we getting Descartes before--oh, nevermind.

"Eep! Eep! Eep!"