Jump to content
Scotty99

"Largest structure in the universe undermines fundamental cosmic principles"

Recommended Posts

No that isnt being humble, jesus. Being humble would be able to go back on HUNDREDS year old theories and rethink where we are at in science today instead of trying to make them fit out of pride.

 

 

Uhm, like the several fundamental paradigm changes that have happened just in my lifetime?

 

We have gone from an unchanging Earth to one governed by plate tectonics.

 

We have gone from a static universe that is infinitely old to one that has expanded from a hot dense state.

 

We have gone from a "zoo" of fundamental particles to a well ordered system.

 

And if you extend that back a bit further, we have gone from time and distance being absolute to all being relative; from gravity being a force to not being one; from electricity and magnetism being totally different things to being the same thing; from light being a waveform to it being quantised; from the plum pudding to the planetary to the modern view of the atom; from ....

 

There has been nothing but the overthrow of centuries old ideas. What is wrong with you?

And look at how willing people were to consider throwing out relativity when it was thought that neutrinos had been seen going faster than light.

 

And when the first evidence for neutrinos was spotted (missing energy) one of the suggestions was that maybe the law of conservation of energy was wrong.

 

And there was some recent work suggesting that there might be a fifth fundamental force.

 

And one of the first explanations for Hubble's law was the suggestion that light just kind of ran down as it travelled through space.

 

And people are still looking at multiple alternative explanations for dark matter: some new kind of matter; gravity doesn't behave as we think; some sort of quantum gas; etc. etc.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Uhm, like the several fundamental paradigm changes that have happened just in my lifetime?

 

We have gone from an unchanging Earth to one governed by plate tectonics.

 

We have gone from a static universe that is infinitely old to one that has expanded from a hot dense state.

 

We have gone from a "zoo" of fundamental particles to a well ordered system.

 

And if you extend that back a bit further, we have gone from time and distance being absolute to all being relative; from gravity being a force to not being one; from electricity and magnetism being totally different things to being the same thing; from light being a waveform to it being quantised; from the plum pudding to the planetary to the modern view of the atom; from ....

 

There has been nothing but the overthrow of centuries old ideas. What is wrong with you?

 

There you go, that is what im talking about! Now, how about we take that passion and do exactly what you said we are capable of and apply that to where we are today. We can do this, but we need to backtrack. This isnt a changing of mindsets, it is going to have to be bigger than that...you are going to have to change everything strange. A reset is the only way we can come to a realization of how this lonely little universe ticks, who is going to start it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There you go, that is what im talking about! Now, how about we take that passion and do exactly what you said we are capable of and apply that to where we are today.

 

 

People are doing exactly that. (I have mentioned some examples, there are plenty more.)

 

I have no idea what you are objecting to. Science hasn't come to a halt. People are still coming up with wild new ideas and testing them. It is just that (as always) 99% of those turn out to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

People are doing exactly that. (I have mentioned some examples, there are plenty more.)

 

I have no idea what you are objecting to. Science hasn't come to a halt. People are still coming up with wild new ideas and testing them. It is just that (as always) 99% of those turn out to be wrong.

 

We can do better strange. Surely you don't believe the sharpest individuals to grace this planet are dead and buried now do you? We have gotten better in almost everything on this planet, science seems to be the exception. Usain bolt keeps breaking his own olympic records, cars can drive themselves, ive seen cats living with dogs even....madness! Seriously tho, i am not bashing how hard people are trying to figure this out good on them, but we aren't reaching the finish line until we start over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.... but we aren't reaching the finish line until we start over.

...because you don't like it as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...because you don't like it as it is.

 

 

I am whatever in that regard, i just know something is off. Like i said earlier....what is the harm? I mean seriously, why cant a group of seriously well respected scientists (in case they find something, they wont get immediately shunned) just backtrack a ways until things start to line up? Way too much ego going on in science, i truly believe this is why we are stuck atm. Just hit every major theory going back ~400 years and apply what we know now to then, see what adds up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am whatever in that regard, i just know something is off. Like i said earlier....what is the harm? I mean seriously, why cant a group of seriously well respected scientists (in case they find something, they wont get immediately shunned) just backtrack a ways until things start to line up? Way too much ego going on in science, i truly believe this is why we are stuck atm. Just hit every major theory going back ~400 years and apply what we know now to then, see what adds up?

It's not a conspiracy. There is nothing a typical scientist would like more than to poke a big hole in an established theory; it means recognition for them and a job well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a conspiracy. There is nothing a typical scientist would like more than to poke a big hole in an established theory; it means recognition for them and a job well done.

 

Then why haven't theories such as the ones ive touched on been scrutinized to the levels they should be? Who is doing work on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you don't believe the sharpest individuals to grace this planet are dead and buried now do you?

 

No. But you seem to. You seem to think that progress has stopped, for some reason. I assume this is just because you don't know what research is going on and what new ideas are being thrown around.

 

I am whatever in that regard, i just know something is off. Like i said earlier....what is the harm? I mean seriously, why cant a group of seriously well respected scientists (in case they find something, they wont get immediately shunned) just backtrack a ways until things start to line up?

 

What makes you think they aren't.

 

Again: PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING AT NEW IDEAS.

 

Scientists always hope to be the one to overthrow the currently established ideas. That is where fame and fortune lies.

 

Then why haven't theories such as the ones ive touched on been scrutinized to the levels they should be?

 

How do you know they are not?

 

And what level should they be scrutinised? And who decides? You? Don't make me laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. But you seem to. You seem to think that progress has stopped, for some reason. I assume this is just because you don't know what research is going on and what new ideas are being thrown around.

 

Possibly, i mean i know a few leading theories. I know multiverses are still being talked about along with string theory. I know some people think "nothing" means everything. I even know some people are trying to validate our current theories with dark matter....but you cant ever see it or touch it ever (i dont mean classically, i am talking this is a new suggestion....just accept it exists, ill try and find the link later).

 

But honestly, nah that isnt me. I know the smartest person who ever graced this planet is alive right now, and we need to find him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...... I know the smartest person who ever graced this planet is alive right now, and we need to find him!

He might be more interested in Pokemon Go, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Go away.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

This attitude isn't going to fly. Legitimate questions about your assertions can't simply be brushed off. Either back up your claim, or it will be you who goes away. (Temporarily or permanently, as circumstances dictate)

 

We can do better strange. Surely you don't believe the sharpest individuals to grace this planet are dead and buried now do you? We have gotten better in almost everything on this planet, science seems to be the exception.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

If you wish to discuss this further, please start a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair warning, i was just a bit triggered by strange's comments which i thought were trying to minimize the implications of discoveries such as this (which he has since stated a couple times, was not his intention).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how are we defining "structure" in this? I see no particular pattern in the blue dots, and while 250 million years may be short against the age of the Universe, it is still a very long time, quite long enough for the GRB's to be independent events. Now, if they spelled out "Eat at Joe's," I would be impressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how are we defining "structure" in this? I see no particular pattern in the blue dots, and while 250 million years may be short against the age of the Universe, it is still a very long time, quite long enough for the GRB's to be independent events. Now, if they spelled out "Eat at Joe's," I would be impressed.

 

Its not about you seeing a patten in the dots, merely that no patterns should exist at that scale:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am whatever in that regard, i just know something is off.

 

We see this phenomena here too often, where someone objects because they perceive a lack or a wrongness in certain theories, but are unable to say exactly what is lacking or wrong. It usually ends up being a lack of knowledge about the theory, or a misunderstanding of its fundamentals.

 

 

Then why haven't theories such as the ones ive touched on been scrutinized to the levels they should be? Who is doing work on this?

 

Is this some kind of popsci backwash we're experiencing, where people think nothing has been written if they haven't read it? This smells a lot like no research has been done to confirm that no research has been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is this some kind of popsci backwash we're experiencing, where people think nothing has been written if they haven't read it? This smells a lot like no research has been done to confirm that no research has been done.

The horizon starts and stops at the end of their nose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We see this phenomena here too often, where someone objects because they perceive a lack or a wrongness in certain theories, but are unable to say exactly what is lacking or wrong. It usually ends up being a lack of knowledge about the theory, or a misunderstanding of its fundamentals.

 

 

Some people seem to trust their instinct more than data.

 

They seem willing to dismiss highly accurate and powerful theories as "vague" (*) or wrong, simply because it doesn't "feel right" (for some vague reason.

 

This often leads them to assume that the only reason that the ideas are accepted is because "Einstein said" or because "it is written in a book" or it is "atheistic" (or similar; there is a right-wing Anti-Wikipedia which claims that black holes don't exist because they are a left-wing invention).

 

And from that they conclude that there is no evidence for the theory in the first place.

 

So they may refer to it as "just" a theory, not realising that "theory" means it is strongly supported by evidence and well-tested.

 

Ho hum.

 

(*) The OP just referred to GR as "vague" in another thread (which I didn't want to derail further). To dismiss one of the most mathematically complex and highly accurate (and well tested) theories as "vague" simply because you don't like it (for vague, undefinable reasons) is the height of .... what ? Hubris, is perhaps the politest word I can come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how are we defining "structure" in this? I see no particular pattern in the blue dots, and while 250 million years may be short against the age of the Universe, it is still a very long time, quite long enough for the GRB's to be independent events. Now, if they spelled out "Eat at Joe's," I would be impressed.

:)http://www.kurzweilai.net/found-hawkings-initials-written-into-the-universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This field is just a curiosity to me but to a "lay" perspective it looks to me as if the notion

that variations are "minor" is at odds with the images published.

Wouldnt the "low resolution" images of such a vast area simply appear as

uniform as a childs balloon?

I certainly wouldn't even remotely (again - as a "lay" person here) consider

these images to be at all uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This field is just a curiosity to me but to a "lay" perspective it looks to me as if the notion

that variations are "minor" is at odds with the images published.

Wouldnt the "low resolution" images of such a vast area simply appear as

uniform as a childs balloon?

I certainly wouldn't even remotely (again - as a "lay" person here) consider

these images to be at all uniform.

 

 

Why are you characterizing them as low resolution? Is that the spatial resolution? If so, you're looking at the wrong axis on the graph. (to be fair, this other axis is usually the color code for the map, and that's not always clearly labeled)

 

Recent results:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/it-s-official-you-re-lost-directionless-universe

http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07178

 

"we obtain a limit on the anisotropic expansion of (σV/H)0 <4.7 x 10^-11"

 

"This can be recast in terms of the vorticity parameter (ω/H)0, which expresses the rotation rate of the universe, giving (ω/H)0 < 5.2 × 1011"

 

Those are pretty small numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swansnt - to me a small image with big pixels is a low res image

(perhaps my computing background leading me astray)

Presumably there are higher res images I havn't seen and that

makes a difference. It just looks very turbulent to me.

 

I don't mean to diminish the acheivment in any way - its just my impression.

I was watching the BBC documentary on cosmology again just last night

(I'm fascinated by the idea of colliding universes leaving circles on the map!

mostly because it works perfectly with my own personal theory of

how it all works out there - which is a bit different from anyone else I know of)

 

It did occur watching that program that much of the leading edge thinking

can still get stuck on the size issue ... for instance the universe shape being

measured by the triangle of lasers - acknowledged as a great breakthrough

demonstarting the universe is flat - but what if the size is really beyond current

numerical immagination and those lasers are still curved a little but far beyond

our ability to detect it - or perhaps lasers at any length just cannot do the job?

 

proof of resolution and precision must be very hard especially as was said

- the map is just the "visible" universe - what if it's much much older than we

can measure or guess - and 13billion years old doesn't even equate closely

to the true age? Then we can only see so far and guess - but maybe that

makes a "flat universe" being capable of not being flat after all.

 

(For anyone who didn't see the program the term "visible" is used in the

scientific not specifically optical sense)

 

As I said - not my field - but I've been listening to descriptions

for many years now and am detecting what appear from the outside

to be anomalous information. And to paraphrase one lady in the program

"that's the fun part"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swansnt - to me a small image with big pixels is a low res image

(perhaps my computing background leading me astray)

Presumably there are higher res images I havn't seen and that

makes a difference. It just looks very turbulent to me.

 

The "turbulence" (by which I assume you mean the spatial variations in temperature across the sky) are exaggerated in any image you see. Otherwise it would be a uniform colour (or a straight line). The variations in temperature and from a perfect black body spectrum are, as swansont has pointed out, really, really minutely tiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "turbulence" (by which I assume you mean the spatial variations in temperature across the sky) are exaggerated in any image you see. Otherwise it would be a uniform colour (or a straight line). The variations in temperature and from a perfect black body spectrum are, as swansont has pointed out, really, really minutely tiny.

 

OK -

I had assumed that (given the fuss about it) there was some important information content.

Are there any actual figures of what the variation is?

Or indeed what the cause is - is it just aftermath of the big bang or dust cloud influence or

whatever?

(The problem with us casually interested bystanders is we never get the whole story - usually just the inept

waffle on BBC teletext!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK -

I had assumed that (given the fuss about it) there was some important information content.

 

There is very important information. Being small doesn't stop it being important! It allows a lot of models of the early universe to be tested.

 

 

Are there any actual figures of what the variation is?

 

Something like 10 parts per million.

 

Or indeed what the cause is - is it just aftermath of the big bang or dust cloud influence or whatever?

 

Some is just random quantum variation. There are also things like "baryon acoustic oscillations" (which I don't really know anything about). And possibly other effects. People who hypothesize parallel universes or a "big bounce" from an earlier universe also suggest that signs of these should appear in the CMB.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Primary_anisotropy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.