How Quantum Fluctuations Ignite the Universe’s Greatest Mysteries

Small Vibrations Marking the Universe’s Formation

Joseph Kuropaka / Alamy

Discover more insights in the Lost in Space-Time newsletter. Register for the latest updates from the universe.

Introduction

Since the 5th century AD, the phrase “In the beginning” has sparked intrigue, originating from the writings of an Israeli priest known as “P.” This profound beginning resonates with our modern understanding of the cosmos. Here’s a glimpse into the universe’s birth:

Words falter when describing the universe’s origins, transcending mere physics and human experience. By retracing our steps, we assert that the universe emerged from a hot Big Bang approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The early universe, characterized by rapid expansion, underwent quantum fluctuations, which left enduring marks.

These fluctuations allowed some regions to expand more rapidly, forming hyperdensities of hot matter, while others lagged, resulting in varying densities. About 100 seconds post-Big Bang, baryonic matter took shape: hydrogen nuclei, helium nuclei, and free electrons. Alongside, dark matter emerged as its elusive counterpart.

Initially, the universe existed as a hot plasma—fluidic and dominated by intense radiation—expanding with Big Bang momentum, aided by dark energy. As expansion slowed over 9 billion years, dark energy escalated the expansion rate.

This early universe’s excess density was predominantly dark matter, with small baryonic matter contributions. Gravity pulled these together, while radiation acted as a binding force. The pressure from this radiation created acoustic vibrations or sound waves within the plasma.

Although these waves were not audible, they traveled faster than half the speed of light, with wavelengths spanning millions of light-years. This era signifies the genesis of our universe.

As the pressure waves from radiation expanded outward, they dragged negatively charged electrons and their heavier baryon counterparts. Dark matter, indifferent to radiation interactions, remained behind, resulting in a spherical wave of dense baryonic material expanding outward.

The propagation speed of these sound waves reflected the baryonic material and radiation’s density. Early waves had smaller amplitudes and higher frequencies, readily damped after minimal cycles, akin to ultrahigh-frequency sound waves.

As the universe continued its expansion and cooldown, roughly 380,000 years later, electrons merged with hydrogen and helium nuclei, giving rise to neutral atoms in a process known as recombination. This event, spanning about 100,000 years, produced cosmic background radiation—an elusive imprint awaiting discovery.

Map of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Exhibiting Density Fluctuations

Collaboration between ESA and Planck

The radiation pressure and sound speed decreased significantly, creating a frozen spherical shell of baryonic material, similar to debris washed ashore by a storm. The largest compressional wave left behind a concentrated sphere of visible matter, termed the sonic horizon, roughly 480 million light-years from the original overdensity.

Early compressional waves left minor imprints on the universe’s matter distribution, while later waves, generated right before recombination, exhibited greater amplitude and lower frequency, observable in today’s cosmic background radiation.

Consequently, regions of high density yield slightly warmer background radiation, while lower density areas produce cooler radiation. This frozen state incorporates traces of matter distribution just after the Big Bang, known as a “feature of the universe.”

The wavelength of these final sound waves closely relates to the curvature of space, while the Hubble constant integrates our understanding of the cosmos measured over 13 billion years.

Both quantum fluctuations and acoustic vibrations provide distinct signatures, akin to cosmic fingerprints. The first evidence emerged on April 23, 1992, revealing temperature variations in a cosmic background radiation map produced by the COBE satellite. George Smoot, the lead researcher, highlighted its monumental significance, describing it as a divine encounter for believers.

Observing distinct directions in the cosmos creates a triangle projecting into space, with the vertex angle referred to as the angular scale. A favorable horizon results in a higher probability of encountering a hot spot within the cosmic background approximately 480 million light-years from another hot spot, corresponding to an angular scale of around 1°.

This measurement surpasses the resolution of earlier instruments, with the WMAP and Planck satellite missions unveiling additional acoustic vibrations down to angular scales under 0.1°.

The origins of baryonic matter contributed to cosmic structures, with small overdensities serving as seeds for star and galaxy formation, while underdensities created voids within the universe’s large-scale structure, known as the cosmic web. Thus, the probability of finding galaxy chains roughly 480 million light-years from each other slightly increases.

By analyzing acoustic vibrations, astrophysicists have accurately assessed cosmological parameters, including baryonic matter density, dark matter, dark energy, and the Hubble constant among others. However, contentment is elusive, as the standard cosmological inflation model (Lambda CDM) reveals we only observe 4.9% of the universe, with dark matter comprising 26.1% and dark energy making up 69%.

The enigma remains: we have yet to uncover the true nature of dark matter and dark energy.

Jim Baggott’s upcoming book, Disharmony: A History of the Hubble Constant Problem, is scheduled for release in the US by Oxford University Press in January 2026.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Can Your Power Bank Ignite a Fire on a Plane? Understanding the Rules and Risks of Lithium-Ion Batteries

Virgin Australia is contemplating a revision of its rules regarding lithium batteries following a fire incident on a flight from Sydney, which was reportedly triggered by a power bank found in passenger carry-on luggage.

Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) reports that the average traveler carries at least four rechargeable lithium battery devices, which may include smartphones, laptops, and portable power banks.

If you’re curious about the regulations and the reasons lithium-ion batteries are viewed as potential flight hazards, here’s a brief summary.


Can I bring a power bank on a plane?

Yes, but the rules vary, so you should check the airline’s restrictions before your flight.

Generally, according to CASA, laptops and cameras may be included in checked luggage as long as they are completely powered off.

However, spare batteries and power banks must be carried in carry-on baggage due to risks of short-circuiting, overheating, and fires during flight.

Lithium-ion batteries exceeding 160WH are not allowed under any circumstances unless they are used as medical aids.

Sign up: AU Breaking NewsEmail

Smart bags containing power banks or lithium-ion batteries are allowed, provided the battery can be removed and carried in the cabin before checking in.


Virgin Australia states that spare or loose batteries, including power banks, must solely be part of carry-on baggage and need to be kept in their original retail packaging; individual batteries should be placed in separate plastic bags, protective pouches, or have their terminals covered with tape.

Qantas advises that passengers with Apple AirPod cases and power banks containing spare or loose batteries should only store them in carry-on baggage.

The airline does not advise using or charging power banks on board for safety reasons.


Can I take a power bank on an overseas flight?

Numerous international airlines, including Thai Airways, Korean Airlines, Eva Airlines, Cathay Pacific, China Airlines, and Singapore Airlines and its budget arm Scoot, have imposed bans regarding their use on board.

If you plan to fly with an international airline, it is essential to verify their specific rules prior to traveling.

Generally, travelers are expected to keep power banks in their carry-on luggage. However, whether or not you can use them in-flight depends on the particular airline.


Is the risk of lithium battery fires significant on airplanes?

Not necessarily. Professor Neeraj Sharma, a battery specialist at the University of New South Wales, states that lithium-ion batteries contain 20 different components, some of which are liquid, making them more volatile than solid elements like electrodes and casings.

Applying pressure to a lithium-ion battery can spark “thermal runaway” (an uncontrollable temperature increase); however, battery explosions are exceedingly rare.

Sharma notes that airlines still recommend carrying batteries in baggage to minimize the risk.

He also mentions that power banks and other lithium-ion battery devices, which are less regulated than mobile phones and laptops (like electric scooters and steam devices), could pose more risks and may be made from inferior quality batteries.

Professor Amanda Ellis, head of the Department of Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Melbourne, agrees that lithium battery fires are not particularly likely to happen on flights.


She explains that the pressure within an airplane cabin is supported by “multiple layers of casings,” preventing batteries from reaching a critical failure. However, enclosed environments can make fires particularly hazardous, especially since it’s not possible to escape the situation while in flight.

“Fires release highly toxic gases, especially in limited spaces that are far from ideal,” she remarks.

Ellis adds that lithium-ion battery fires can be challenging to extinguish, as lithium can ignite and ignite surrounding materials—high-energy substances that can sustain burning for extended periods.

“Using water to douse a lithium fire is not advisable, which could be the first instinct of someone on a plane,” she notes.


What causes lithium-ion batteries to ignite?

Lithium-ion batteries comprise ions suspended within an electrolyte solution. During charging and discharging, these ions travel back and forth across the two electrodes.

Ellis states that a common cause of battery fires is overcharging, which can lead to overheating. If a battery becomes excessively charged, it can crack, causing the highly flammable electrolyte to ignite when it contacts air.

More sophisticated lithium-battery-powered devices, like smartphones, typically include a built-in “trickle system” that prevents overcharging by incrementally adding current to the battery.

However, Ellis explains that cheaper power banks often lack this safety feature.

“Avoid charging a power bank overnight,” she advises. “Only charge it for as long as necessary. Monitor the power bank until the indicator light switches from red to green.”

Overall, Ellis reassures that if lithium batteries are used correctly and under suitable conditions, they are generally safe, and passengers need not be overly concerned while flying.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump’s Golden Dome Defense Initiative May Ignite Space Force Rivalry

US President Donald Trump (left) announces the Golden Dome Missile Defense Shield, joined by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (right).

Chris Kleponis/Pool/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

US President Donald Trump has introduced the Golden Dome defense initiative, designed to intercept threats like polar sounds, ballistic missiles, and advanced cruise missiles.

“Once fully operational, the Golden Dome is engineered to intercept missiles launched from around the globe or even from outer space,” Trump stated during a White House announcement on May 20th. Watch here.

However, many experts express skepticism regarding the feasibility of such a comprehensive interception system. Concerns have been raised that, even if successful, the Golden Dome could require over a decade to implement and exceed $50 trillion in costs, potentially exacerbating global nuclear arms races and space militarization.

What is the Golden Dome?

The project is inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome system, which utilizes ground-based missiles to intercept incoming artillery and rockets launched from shorter ranges. In contrast, the Golden Dome aims to safeguard a significantly larger area, with the landmass of the contiguous US being over 350 times that of Israel.

According to Trump and his team, the system should be capable of targeting ballistic missiles fired from distant locations, advanced cruise missiles operating at lower altitudes, and hypersonic missiles traveling at speeds exceeding five times the speed of sound. These could possess nuclear or conventional warheads.

To detect and neutralize threats, the Golden Dome is expected to employ a mix of “space-based sensors alongside air and missile defenses,” as noted by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in a statement. Essentially, the Golden Dome would represent an umbrella system integrating multiple technologies to combat various threats, as explained by David Berbach in an article with New Scientist.

Nevertheless, many of these defense capabilities are still in development or do not currently exist. For instance, the proposal mentions space-based interceptors in low Earth orbit, which remains a technological hurdle yet to be overcome. Thomas Gonzalez Roberts from Georgia Tech pointed this out.

A similar concept known as Star Wars was initially suggested by President Ronald Reagan as part of his strategic defense initiatives during the Cold War. Trump characterized the Golden Dome as an endeavor to complete “the mission President Reagan initiated 40 years ago.”

How does the Golden Dome function?

Experts in missile defense have likened the challenge of intercepting long-range nuclear missiles to “shooting bullets at bullets,” given that “the targets are minuscule, emit minimal signals, and move rapidly.” Even the most optimistic technical specialists acknowledge that achieving a 100% interception rate is unlikely.

The U.S. already possesses an array of ground-based interceptor missiles located predominantly in Alaska, capable of countering “dozens of oncoming warheads at best,” according to Burbach. He also highlighted that both Russia and China are working on countermeasures to complicate missile detection and interception.

“Interception of subsonic cruise or short-range ballistic missiles launched from just outside the U.S. borders employs established technology, yet effectively implementing those defenses across the nation can be cost-prohibitive,” said Burbach. He further emphasized the difficulty of the Golden Dome’s goal to thwart a significant volume of intercontinental missiles, particularly from China and Russia.

Trump’s vow to shield the Golden Dome against missile strikes from distant points, even from space, “requires a densely packed constellation of space-based missile interceptors in low-Earth orbit that could engage missiles within moments of their launch,” indicated Roberts.

“The number of satellites necessary far exceeds the current constellations launched,” he noted. Presently, the largest constellations consist of about 7,000 Starlink satellites managed by SpaceX.

What is the estimated cost of the Golden Dome?

Trump has suggested a budget of $175 billion for the Golden Dome, though this funding remains unapproved by Congress. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency, has estimated that space-based interceptor systems akin to the Golden Dome may cost upwards of $542 billion.

“It’s uncertain what expenses are incorporated in the $175 billion figure,” noted Patrycja Bazylczyk of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

Trump also asserted that the Golden Dome would be “fully operational” by the conclusion of his second term, a claim that experts find dubious. “The three-year timetable is overly ambitious. Realistically, this initiative will take at least a decade or more,” Bazylczyk added.

The timelines could significantly depend on existing military system capabilities. “Notable advancements could arise in the short term, including the deployment of new interceptors, radar systems, space-based sensors, and technology demonstrations,” Bazylczyk mentioned.

Ultimately, considerable challenges exist regarding the rapid deployment of thousands of satellites required for the Golden Dome. Additionally, developing the necessary space-based interceptor technology remains a daunting task.

“Finding a launch schedule capable of supporting a massive satellite constellation emerging in just three years is extremely challenging,” Roberts pointed out. “SpaceX has launched more than any other entity in the history of space operations, raising the question of how to surpass that threshold even more.”

Burbach added, “It seems unlikely that the system will achieve a complete defense against missile attacks. We might attain some limited operational capabilities, but accomplishing this quickly is fraught with difficulties.”

Will the Golden Dome enhance U.S. security?

Currently, an arms race is underway among the U.S., China, and Russia, with each nation enhancing its space-based capabilities to modernize and grow their nuclear arsenals and military strength.

Should the Golden Dome effectively bolster U.S. air and missile defenses, it might lessen adversaries’ confidence in their missile capabilities, possibly altering strategic calculations and discouraging them from launching attacks, according to Bazylczyk.

In contrast, the Golden Dome could potentially “contribute to instability” by signaling distrust towards nuclear adversaries, indicated Roberts. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to Trump’s announcement, arguing that the Golden Dome carries a “strongly offensive implication” and could spur an arms race in space. Likewise, a Kremlin spokesperson suggested that the Golden Dome might restart discussions on nuclear arms control between Russia and the U.S.

In response to the system, both China and Russia “may attempt to destroy or disrupt U.S. satellites,” posited Burbach. Both nations have already developed missiles capable of targeting satellites, and they have demonstrated the capacity to jam or hack into satellite systems. In February 2024, U.S. intelligence agencies alerted that they intended to develop space weapons capable of using nuclear detonations to incapacitate or obliterate satellites.

Moreover, these countries could increase their missile arsenals and create more versatile weapons equipped with decoys, Burbach noted. He pointed out that Russia is already advancing technologies like underwater intercontinental nuclear torpedoes designed to evade space-based interception.

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Is it possible for them to ignite Uranus and steal the elusive diamonds?

Dead Planets Society is a podcast that takes some crazy ideas for how to tinker with the universe and tests their effects against the laws of physics, from snapping the moon in half to causing doomsday events with gravitational waves. apple, Spotify Or check out our podcast page.

Uranus and Neptune are so similar that we don't need both. That's the idea behind this episode of Dead Planets Society, in which hosts Chelsea Whyte and Leah Crane decide to light Uranus on fire.

There's a scientific justification for this, of course. For one thing, burning material and examining the light from it, a process called spectroscopy, is one of the best ways to determine its chemical composition. And because the depths of ice giants remain murky and mysterious, burning up the outer layers could reveal what's underneath.

Before you reach for the matches, let's talk about our special guest, planetary scientist Pole Barn That could be tricky, says a researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri: Uranus' outer layers lack the oxygen needed for combustion, he explains, so pumping in more oxygen than is contained in the entire solar system might not be helpful.

But the interior of Uranus isn't just shrouded in mystery – it may also be full of iceberg-like diamond chunks. This quickly changes the host's focus: this is no longer a fireworks mission, but a heist.

While the planet's outer layers would still need to be removed, the most efficient way would probably be to collide it with another planet. Viewed from Earth, this would be seen as a flash of light, a glowing cloud of steam, and perhaps a bright tail forming behind Uranus. The impact would need to be carefully planned so as not to shatter the planet and its diamonds.

But a suitable collision could accomplish both the new goal of obtaining Uranus' diamonds and the original goal of exposing and studying its depths. It could also destroy the entire solar system, but when has the Society of Dead Planets ever worried about that?

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com