A team of scientists working at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii has solved one of the vital inconsistencies in the Big Bang theory, reconciling observed data with our current theoretical models of how the birth of the universe went down 13.8 billion years ago. The discovery was published in the June 6 edition of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
Though widely accept in the scientific community, the Big Bang theory still has some kinks. One of the greatest discrepancies between the model and our actual observations of the universe involves the presence of lithium isotopes.
Light elements like helium, deuterium and lithium formed in the first hot moments of the universe's existence, according to a theory called Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but from what we could tell, the actual levels of lithium in the in the universe were much different than the model would suggest. From looking at the oldest stars in our galaxy, it seemed that there was about 200 times more of the isotope Lithium-6 than Big Bang nucleosynthesis accounted for, and up to five times less of Lithium-7.
But according to Karin Lind of the University of Cambridge, that data was somewhat inaccurate. Li-6 is a difficult isotope to detect, as it has a fairly weak signature. A 2004 upgrade to a spectograph at the Keck Observatory, which houses two of the largest telescopes in the world, allowed Lind and her team to see it in finer detail than had been possible previously. They discovered that the lower quality observation, along with some simplifications in analysis, led to a false reading of lithium levels in earlier data.
"Using more sophisticated physics and powerful super-computers, we managed to remove the systematic biases that plague traditional modeling and have previously led to false identifications of the 6Li/7Li isotopic signature," Lind says in a statement. The team's observations of lithium levels were more in line with the Big Bang theory's predictions.
"Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation," Lind explains.
Whoops, i wonder what else science got wrong the first time around.
to mars or bust!
I love Lithium. I think its the only stable element that can produce energy in both fusion and fission reactions.
Lithium won't produce energy in a fission reaction. Anything lower than atomic number 26 (Fe) will produce energy in fusion, and anything higher in fission. That's the basics of it, anyway.
Big Bang has 4 inherent problems 1) It's taught so it's believed. This usually is a pretext for a problem. 2)No centre of the Universe has ever been found. No centre; No Big Bang. In an effort to continue in their support of the Bang Theory, scientist now are suggesting what is called the Multi Big Bang Theory, which from a mathematical perspective is impossible. Unrelated mathematical events cannot produce a homogeneous result. One Big Bang would produce pink balloons, the next blue Buicks, and the last a Universe. 3) As the model would suggest the expanding Universe should slow down, and eventually collapse unto itself. This is not observed, as the Universe continues to accelerate and expand. To further give support for the Big Bang Theory astronomers have produced another theory, "Dark Matter". Why just have one bad theory when you can have several. Dark Matter is supposed to be that mass that draws the Universe outward and allows it to further expand. No Dark Matter has ever been found. Maybe we need a new theory. 4) Big Bang does not reflect what is observed. That is the true acid test. Kepler, the great German physics took 5 yrs developing his 3 laws that reflect the orbits of the planets exactly as they are observed in nature. He was laughed at, and long after his death his math was never accepted. Einstein developed his model for gravity, with NO math or formula's to back his theory, but his curved space theory was accepted as it was God sent. The problem with his curved space theory it doesn't reflect what is observed, it fails the acid test.
Einstein's "theory" of relativity is grotesque nonsense which must be removed from physics urgently to avoid further damage to science and society (cf. youtube.com/watch?v=mhG3R66wFpg). Removing of Einstein's "theory" from science also means removal of all the related travesty of science such as cosmology, string theories and so on. Until that removal is accomplished, the confusion will persist and the need to fudge data will grow incessantly because there are grants to justify, infrastructures to maintain and reputations to defend. The situation with keeping Einstein's "theory" of relativity in science is every bit similar -- the stakes being even higher -- to the way organized crime defends its territory in drug-dealing, prostitution and any other illicit activity it has its hands on.
@ straw walker, tia; Yet a good portion of what is currently observed does in fact work with most of these prevailing theories-and therefore we have to keep teaching them, if for no other reason than to give the bright new minds coming along the scope of the problems that must be solved. Now that we know the problems with GR and Special Relativity we need to be stressing that we know it to be incorrect to some degree. Same with String Theory. While all of the theoretical models have proven incorrect, we've learned much from each one. And hey, the fact is that ya gotta teach Something. Or are you advocating that teaching stop at calculus? Just because red shift factoring isn't finding us a universal center does not mean it is incorrect. Does not mean that it hasn't in fact found us a center that IS correct.
With the Big Bang theory comes the facts of what we see with explosions like the part about not everything exploding. We do not need Dark Matter in my view. Yet to some degree we KNOW that there is matter-and other stuff-that we cannot detect. And then come the elements that are predicted for the Table. And we KNOW that certain elements have high certainties associated with our abilities to detect at long range, while many do not as of yet, as demonstrated here. Even with my dissatisfaction with the different major theories, having thought about this very thing-to teach or not to teach-for a few years now; I can't think of any way to get to where things are discovered without teaching the theories and pointing to the flaws. The first lesson about Einstein should be that his and the others working with the problems of those years came up with something that worked so well that it took us till just recently to define what was wrong with them. THAT is what we continue to aim for. An increasingly defined way to explain what is. NOTHING is doctrine yet. And just as Einstein, Bose, Planck, Watt, Tesla, and everybody else that's a curious type; we're all just dogs in the hunt. All the answers are a long way off yet. And everybody up till now has been WRONG at least to some degree so maybe we need to stop with the pageant and get with the team effort minus the names. Peer review for example. Shouldn't include a person's name unless germane to the discussion. As Dyson said, no prima donnas. If the finding is favorable, the paparrazzi will find them for us, never fear.
For straw walker youtube.com/watch?v=i1UC6HpxY28
I highly suggest that all of you "non believers" of the Big Bang Theory that you look up the scientific definition of the word theory and enroll yourselves in a basic science class or astronomy/earth science class.