The Big Bang's Glowing 'Echo' May Be Something Else Entirely
Part of the reason scientists have settled on the Big Bang theory as the best explanation of how the Universe came into being is because of an 'afterglow' it emits – but a new study suggests we may need to rethink the source of this faint radiation.
Technically, this afterglow is known as Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, and it's been traveling through space for more than 13 billion years, since soon after the Big Bang first went bang. It can be picked up by our most advanced telescopes.
Now, researchers from Nanjing University in China and the University of Bonn in Germany have run calculations suggesting we've overestimated the strength of the CMB. In fact, it might not even be there at all.
The rocking of the cosmological boat, as it were, is driven by new evidence of early-type galaxies (ETGs). Recent data from the James Webb Space Telescope suggests these ETGs might account for some or even all of the CMB, depending on the simulation used.
"Our results are a problem for the standard model of cosmology," says physicist Pavel Kroupa, from the University of Bonn. "It might be necessary to rewrite the history of the Universe, at least in part."
Scientists already know plenty about ETGs, which are usually elliptical in shape. What's new is that recent studies, and this latest interpretation of them, point to these types of galaxies having formed even earlier than previous models accounted for.
If that timeline shifts, then so does the pattern of radiation spreading out across the Universe. In simple terms, the Universe may have moved through its initial phase of gas surges and galaxy formation quicker than we imagined.
"The Universe has been expanding since the Big Bang, like dough that is rising," says Kroupa. "This means that the distance between galaxies is increasing constantly."
"We have measured how far apart elliptical galaxies are from one another today. Using this data and taking into account the characteristics of this group of galaxies, we were then able to use the speed of expansion to determine when they first formed."
This earlier estimate for the formation of these ETGs means that their brightness could emerge "as a non-negligible source of CMB foreground contamination", the researchers write.
We should bear in mind that this research is still in its preliminary stages. It's not time yet to start pulping scientific textbooks – or whatever the modern equivalent is. Rewriting Wikipedia, perhaps? But this research certainly raises some big questions.
Given the almost unimaginable timescales and distances involved, it's difficult for astrophysicists to always be precise. The researchers suggest anywhere from 1.4 percent to 100 percent of the CMB could be explained by their new models.
What's certain is that as our space telescopes and analysis systems get more sophisticated, we're learning more about the surrounding Universe than ever before – and that in turn means some previous assumptions may have to be readjusted, including those about the very formation of the Universe itself.
"In the view of the results documented here, it may become necessary to consider [other] cosmological models," write the researchers in their published paper.
The research has been published in Nuclear Physics B.
A Serious Threat May Be Lurking in The Orbit of Venus, Says Study
We Now Know What Switched The Lights on at The Dawn of Time
Light Travels Across The Universe Without Losing Energy. But How?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Astronomers thought they found signs of life on distant planet. New studies are skeptical
Back in April, the world became captivated by the news that maybe, just maybe, we weren't alone in the universe after all. If extraterrestrials were to exist on a distant exoplanet as a team of astronomers theorized, it wouldn't exactly be intelligent life, but – hey – it was something. The explosive findings came from a team of researchers at the University of Cambridge who studied data from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope to find molecules in the atmosphere of a planet known as K2-18b that could have been created by organisms akin to marine algae. But then along came other independent astronomers who took their own look at the data and came to their own highly skeptical conclusions. A series of studies since the April 17 announcement have cast doubt on the sensational claim that what the initial researchers had found was "the strongest evidence yet" that life exists anywhere else besides Earth. "The data we have so far is much too noisy for the proof that would be needed to make that claim,' Rafael Luque, an astronomer at the University of Chicago, who led the most recent study, said in a statement. 'There's just not enough certainty to say one way or the other.' Here's everything to know about K2-18b, and just what potential it has to harbor alien life. K2-18b, which orbits a red dwarf star more than 120 light-years from Earth, has for years intrigued astronomers who believe it could be among the best places to search for signs of extraterrestrial life. The cosmic body is an exoplanet, meaning it orbits a star outside of Earth's own solar system. First discovered in 2015 during NASA's planet-hunting K2 mission, K2-18b likely orbits its star in what astronomers refer to as the "habitable zone" – where conditions could allow for water. In a nod to the classic fairy tale, astronomers even refer to these regions as "Goldilocks" zones because conditions have to be just right – neither too hot nor too cold – for water to remain in liquid form and pool on planetary surfaces. Interestingly, K2-18b, which is 8.6 times bigger than Earth, isn't rocky like our planet. Rather, observations have allowed scientists to conclude that the exoplanet could be a Hycean world covered by ocean water underneath a hydrogen-rich atmosphere. Could alien life thrive on K2-18b? What to know about the distant exoplanet The latest findings on K2-18b came from a team of researchers led by Nikku Madhusudhan, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge in England. Because the planet is too far and too faint to observe directly with ground telescopes, astronomers had to get creative. In this case, the team studied data from the Webb Telescope gathered from observing K2-18b as the planet crossed in front of its star, causing starlight to filter through the planet's atmosphere. As the light passed through the planet's atmosphere, different amounts of light were blocked at different wavelengths, depending on what molecules are present. That's what led Madhusudhan and his team to detect hints of sulfur-based gases dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) in the atmosphere – both molecules from the same chemical family. On Earth, the gases are only produced by life, primarily microbial life such as marine algae like phytoplankton, according to the researchers. Since then, at least three different studies have largely dismissed the notion that any compelling evidence has been found to yet suggest life exists on K2-18b. In the most recent study led by Luque, researchers reviewed data from multiple observations of the planet. After combining observations of K2-18b in both the near-infrared light and longer wavelengths of mid-infrared light, the team concluded that it did not detect dimethyl sulfide. What's more, they found that other molecules, not just those possibly indicating signs of life, could explain the questionable discovery. In an earlier study published to arXiv, Jake Taylor, an astrophysicist at the University of Oxford, took a look at the Webb telescope data using a common data model for exoplanet studies and came to much the same conclusion: Taylor found no evidence of the atmospheric clues that were so integral in the Cambridge study's findings. Madhusudhan, who has issued rebuttals to some of the findings dismissing his potential discovery, has readily acknowledged that his team's observations are in need of further review. In announcing the findings, Madhusudhan conceded the molecules observed could have occurred by chance or could be the result of previously unknown chemical processes at work on K2-18b. Regardless, it appears astronomers all agree that we may not be as close as we thought to determining whether anything does indeed live on K2-18b. 'Answering whether there is life outside the solar system is the most important question of our field. It is why we are all studying these planets,' Luque said in a statement. 'We are making enormous progress in this field, and we don't want that to be overshadowed by premature declarations.' Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Planet K2-18b life signs discovery now in doubt
USA Today
6 hours ago
- USA Today
Astronomers thought they found signs of life on distant planet. New studies are skeptical
Astronomers thought they found signs of life on distant planet. New studies are skeptical A series of studies have cast doubt on the sensational claim that "the strongest evidence yet" was found that life exists anywhere else besides Earth. Show Caption Hide Caption Astronomers find possible signs of alien life on distant planet K2-18b Astronomers plan to conduct more research after finding possible signs of alien life on a distant exoplanet known as K2-18b. The findings came from a team of researchers at the University of Cambridge who studied data from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope to find molecules in the atmosphere of a planet known as K2-18b. On Earth, the gases are only produced by life, primarily microbial life such as marine algae like phytoplankton, according to the researchers. Since then, other independent astronomers who took their own look at the data and came to their own highly skeptical conclusions. Back in April, the world became captivated by the news that maybe, just maybe, we weren't alone in the universe after all. If extraterrestrials were to exist on a distant exoplanet as a team of astronomers theorized, it wouldn't exactly be intelligent life, but – hey – it was something. The explosive findings came from a team of researchers at the University of Cambridge who studied data from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope to find molecules in the atmosphere of a planet known as K2-18b that could have been created by organisms akin to marine algae. But then along came other independent astronomers who took their own look at the data and came to their own highly skeptical conclusions. A series of studies since the April 17 announcement have cast doubt on the sensational claim that what the initial researchers had found was "the strongest evidence yet" that life exists anywhere else besides Earth. "The data we have so far is much too noisy for the proof that would be needed to make that claim,' Rafael Luque, an astronomer at the University of Chicago, who led the most recent study, said in a statement. 'There's just not enough certainty to say one way or the other.' Here's everything to know about K2-18b, and just what potential it has to harbor alien life. What is exoplanet K2-18b? K2-18b, which orbits a red dwarf star more than 120 light-years from Earth, has for years intrigued astronomers who believe it could be among the best places to search for signs of extraterrestrial life. The cosmic body is an exoplanet, meaning it orbits a star outside of Earth's own solar system. First discovered in 2015 during NASA's planet-hunting K2 mission, K2-18b likely orbits its star in what astronomers refer to as the "habitable zone" – where conditions could allow for water. In a nod to the classic fairy tale, astronomers even refer to these regions as "Goldilocks" zones because conditions have to be just right – neither too hot nor too cold – for water to remain in liquid form and pool on planetary surfaces. Interestingly, K2-18b, which is 8.6 times bigger than Earth, isn't rocky like our planet. Rather, observations have allowed scientists to conclude that the exoplanet could be a Hycean world covered by ocean water underneath a hydrogen-rich atmosphere. Could alien life thrive on K2-18b? What to know about the distant exoplanet Have they found life on K2-18b? The latest findings on K2-18b came from a team of researchers led by Nikku Madhusudhan, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge in England. Because the planet is too far and too faint to observe directly with ground telescopes, astronomers had to get creative. In this case, the team studied data from the Webb Telescope gathered from observing K2-18b as the planet crossed in front of its star, causing starlight to filter through the planet's atmosphere. As the light passed through the planet's atmosphere, different amounts of light were blocked at different wavelengths, depending on what molecules are present. That's what led Madhusudhan and his team to detect hints of sulfur-based gases dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) in the atmosphere – both molecules from the same chemical family. On Earth, the gases are only produced by life, primarily microbial life such as marine algae like phytoplankton, according to the researchers. Scientists cast doubt on signs of alien life on K2-18b Since then, at least three different studies have largely dismissed the notion that any compelling evidence has been found to yet suggest life exists on K2-18b. In the most recent study led by Luque, researchers reviewed data from multiple observations of the planet. After combining observations of K2-18b in both the near-infrared light and longer wavelengths of mid-infrared light, the team concluded that it did not detect dimethyl sulfide. What's more, they found that other molecules, not just those possibly indicating signs of life, could explain the questionable discovery. In an earlier study published to arXiv, Jake Taylor, an astrophysicist at the University of Oxford, took a look at the Webb telescope data using a common data model for exoplanet studies and came to much the same conclusion: Taylor found no evidence of the atmospheric clues that were so integral in the Cambridge study's findings. Madhusudhan, who has issued rebuttals to some of the findings dismissing his potential discovery, has readily acknowledged that his team's observations are in need of further review. In announcing the findings, Madhusudhan conceded the molecules observed could have occurred by chance or could be the result of previously unknown chemical processes at work on K2-18b. Regardless, it appears astronomers all agree that we may not be as close as we thought to determining whether anything does indeed live on K2-18b. 'Answering whether there is life outside the solar system is the most important question of our field. It is why we are all studying these planets,' Luque said in a statement. 'We are making enormous progress in this field, and we don't want that to be overshadowed by premature declarations.' Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@
Scientific American
11 hours ago
- Scientific American
Why Do We Launch Space Telescopes?
On April 24, 1990, NASA and the European Space Agency launched an astronomical revolution. When the Space Shuttle Discovery roared into the sky on that day, it carried the Hubble Space Telescope in its payload bay, and the astronauts aboard deployed it into low-Earth orbit soon thereafter. Hubble is not the largest telescope ever built—in fact, with a 2.4-meter mirror, it's actually considered by astronomers to be small—but it has a huge advantage over its earthbound siblings: it's above essentially all of our planet's atmosphere. That lofty perch makes Hubble's views sharper and deeper—and even broader, by allowing the telescope to gather types of light invisible to human eyes and otherwise blocked by Earth's air. And, after 35 years in orbit, Hubble is still delivering incredible science and cosmic vistas of breathtaking beauty. Launching telescopes into space takes much more effort and money than building them on the ground, though. Space telescopes also tend to be smaller than ground-based ones; they have to fit into the payload housing of a rocket, limiting their size. That restriction can be minimized by designing an observatory to launch in a folded-up form that then unfurls in space, as with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) —but this approach almost inevitably piles on more risk, complexity and cost. Given those considerable obstacles, one might ask whether space telescopes are ever really worth the hassle. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The short answer is: Yes, of course! For astronomical observations, getting above Earth's atmosphere brings three very basic but extremely powerful advantages. The first is that the sky is much darker in space. We tend to think of our atmosphere as being transparent, at least when it's cloudless. But unwanted light still suffuses Earth's air, even on the clearest night at the planet's darkest spot. Light pollution—unneeded illumination cast up into the sky instead of down to the ground—accounts for some of this, but the air also contains sunlight-energized molecules that slowly release this energy as a feeble trickle of visible light. This 'airglow' is dim but, even at night, outshines very faint celestial objects, limiting what ground-based telescopes can see. It's a problem of contrast, like trying to hear a whisper in a crowded restaurant. The quieter the background noise level, the better you can hear faint sounds. It's the same with the sky: a darker sky allows fainter objects to be seen. The second advantage to observing from space is that this escapes the inherent unsteadiness of our air. Turbulence in the atmosphere is the reason stars twinkle. That's anathema to astronomers; the twinkling of a star smears out its light during an observation, blurring small structures together and limiting a ground-based telescope's effective resolution (that is, how well it can distinguish between two closely spaced objects). This also makes faint objects even dimmer and harder to detect because their light isn't concentrated into a single spot and is instead diffused. Above the atmosphere, the stars and nebulas and galaxies appear crisp and unwavering, allowing us to capture far greater detail. The third reason to slip the surly bonds of Earth is that our air is extremely good at shielding us from many wavelengths of light our eyes cannot see. Ultraviolet light has wavelengths shorter than visible light (the kind our eyes detect), and while some of it reaches Earth's surface from space—enough from the sun, at least, to cause sunburns—a lot of it is instead absorbed by the air. In fact, light with a wavelength shorter than about 0.3 micron is absorbed completely. (That's a bit shorter than that of violet light, the shortest we can see, at about 0.38 micron.) So any sufficiently shortwave light—not just ultraviolet, but also even more cell-damaging x-rays and gamma rays—is sopped up by molecules in the air. That's good for human health but not great for observations of astronomical phenomena that emit light in these regimes. This happens with longer wavelengths, too. Carbon dioxide and water are excellent absorbers of infrared light, preventing astronomers on the ground from seeing most of those emissions from cosmic objects, too. As we've learned with JWST, observations in infrared can show us much about the universe that would otherwise lie beyond our own limited visual range. As just one example, the light from extremely distant galaxies is redshifted by the cosmic expansion into infrared wavelengths, where JWST excels. In fact, space telescopes that can see in different wavelengths have been crucial for discovering all sorts of surprising celestial objects and events. X-rays were critical in finding the first black holes, whose accretion disks generate high-energy light as the matter within them falls inward. Gamma-ray bursts, immensely powerful explosions, were initially detected via space-based observations. Brown dwarfs (which are essentially failed stars) emit very little visible light but are bright enough in the infrared that we now count them by the thousands in our catalogs. Observing in these other kinds of light is critical for unveiling important details about the underlying astrophysics of these and other phenomena. It's only by combining observations across the electromagnetic spectrum that we can truly understand how the universe works. Still, launching telescopes into space is a lot of trouble and expense. Official work on Hubble started in the 1970s, but delays kept it on the ground for decades. It also cost a lot of money: roughly $19.5 billion total between 1977 and 2021, in today's dollars. (Operational costs have been about $100 million per year in recent years, but Hubble is facing budget cuts.) JWST was $10 billion before it even launched, and running it adds about $170 million annually to the project's total price tag. Compare that with the European Southern Observatory's Extremely Large Telescope, or ELT, a 39-meter behemoth currently under construction that has an estimated budget of under $2 billion. Building on the ground is simpler, requires less testing and is more fault-tolerant, allowing much more bang for the buck. The capabilities of ground-based versus space-based telescopes are different, however. In general, big earthbound telescopes can collect a lot of light and see faint structures, but except for the ELT, they don't have the resolution of their space-based counterparts and can't see light outside the transparency window of our planet's air. Also, not every observation needs to be done from space; many can be done just fine from the ground, freeing up time on the more expensive and tightly scheduled space telescopes. Pitting these two kinds of facilities against each other—why have one when we can have the other?—is the wrong way to think about this. They don't compete; they complement. Together they provide a much clearer view of the cosmos than either can give by itself. Astronomy needs both.
