New evidence for a preferred direction in spacetime challenges the cosmological principle

Sep 07, 2011 by Lisa Zyga weblog
The hemisphere with the "preferred" direction on the left, in contrast to the opposite hemisphere on the right. The color of the dots represents the sign and magnitude of the anisotropy level. Image credit: Cai, et al.

(PhysOrg.com) -- According to the cosmological principle, there is no special place or direction in the universe when viewed on the cosmic scale. The assumption enabled Copernicus to propose that Earth was not the center of the universe and modern scientists to assume that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. Due to the cosmological principle, scientists also assume that the universe is “homogeneous” - having a uniform structure throughout - and “isotropic” - having uniform properties throughout.

But a few recent studies have found the possible existence of cosmological anisotropy: specifically, that the universe’s expansion is accelerating at a faster rate in one direction than another. In the most recent study, scientists have analyzed data from 557 Type 1a supernovae and found, in agreement with some previous studies, that the universe’s expansion seems to be accelerating faster in the direction of a small part of the northern galactic hemisphere.

The researchers, Rong-Gen Cai and Zhong-Liang Tuo from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, have posted their study at arXiv.org.

A valuable tool for cosmologists, Type 1a supernovae serve as “standard candles” due to their consistent peak luminosity, allowing researchers to measure their distance with high accuracy. Observations of these supernovae famously revealed in 1998 that the universe is not only expanding, but is doing so at an accelerating rate. And now, some observations of Type 1a supernovae at different locations in the sky hint that the acceleration is not uniform in all directions.

In their analysis, Cai and Tuo looked at the deceleration parameter, q0, to quantify the anisotropy level of the northern galactic and southern galactic hemispheres. As the scientists explain in their study, the direction with the smaller value of q0 is expanding faster than the direction with the larger value. The researchers analyzed the data using both a dynamical dark energy model and a standard model without dark energy, and found that both models revealed similar results: an anisotropy deviation of 0.76 and 0.79, respectively, and a preferred direction of (309°, 21°) and (314°, 28°), respectively. As noted by the Physics arXiv Blog, this of greatest acceleration is in the faint constellation of Vulpecula in the northern hemisphere.

But as Cai and Tuo note in their study, the case is far from closed. In contrast with the current results, some previous analyses of Type 1a supernovae data have not found any statistically significant evidence for anisotropies. And many other data - such as that for the cosmic microwave background radiation, galaxy statistics, and dark matter haloes - strongly support the of homogeneity and isotropy on the cosmic scale.

Yet considering that the cosmological principle is one of the pillars of modern cosmology whose fundamental importance is difficult to exaggerate, threats to its credibility won’t be taken lightly. If the cosmological principle turns out to be wrong, it would dramatically change the way we look at the world.

Explore further: And so they beat on, flagella against the cantilever

More information: Rong-Gen Cai, et al. "Direction dependence of the acceleration in type Ia supernovae." arXiv:1109.0941v2 [astro-ph.CO]
via: Physics arXiv Blog

Related Stories

Dark energy -- 10 years on

Nov 30, 2007

Three quarters of our universe is made up of some weird, gravitationally repulsive substance that was only discovered ten years ago – dark energy. This month in Physics World, Eric Linder and Saul Perlmutter, both at the ...

Recommended for you

And so they beat on, flagella against the cantilever

Sep 16, 2014

A team of researchers at Boston University and Stanford University School of Medicine has developed a new model to study the motion patterns of bacteria in real time and to determine how these motions relate ...

Tandem microwave destroys hazmat, disinfects

Sep 16, 2014

Dangerous materials can be destroyed, bacteria spores can be disinfected, and information can be collected that reveals the country of origin of radiological isotopes - all of this due to a commercial microwave ...

Cornell theorists continue the search for supersymmetry

Sep 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —It was a breakthrough with profound implications for the world as we know it: the Higgs boson, the elementary particle that gives all other particles their mass, discovered at the Large Hadron ...

How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?

Sep 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —From cyanobacteria to humans, many terrestrial species have acquired circadian rhythms that adapt to sunlight in order to increase survival rates. Studies have shown that the circadian clocks ...

User comments : 77

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1.5 / 5 (19) Sep 07, 2011
strongly support the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy on the cosmic scale.

Seems to me that this principle has been slightly but significantly modified on the quiet since it has become clear that galaxies line up in patterns of strings and voids....
Now it applies to the "Cosmic" scale. Just how big is that cosmos supposed to be to show the homogeneity because current observations do not support it?
Shootist
5 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2011
Just how big is that cosmos supposed to be to show the homogeneity because current observations do not support it?


The closest thing to infinite this side of the putative creator entity.
CHollman82
5 / 5 (26) Sep 07, 2011
Seems to me that this principle has been slightly but significantly modified on the quiet since it has become clear that galaxies line up in patterns of strings and voids....
Now it applies to the "Cosmic" scale. Just how big is that cosmos supposed to be to show the homogeneity because current observations do not support it?


The structure of the sand on a beach seems quite homogeneous from the perspective of an individual walking on it... how would it look from the perspective of a microbe?

Homogeneity is a human construct that is relative and ill defined. It is useful as a descriptive tool but only if the scale where the property applies is understood.
vidyunmaya
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 07, 2011
Sub: Cosmological Index-Cosmology Definition
The subject of Cosmology is under Revision -during last decade. cosmology needs to orient towards origins-Vedas Interlinks. Cosmological Index means Direction through Science in philosophy.
Cosmology Definition identifies the inadequacy of perception in the present scenario
Dr Vidyardhi Nanduri promotes the Unity in Science and Philosophy through Cosmology Vedas Interlinks
PURPOSE OF INTERLINKS:
1. The Science of Philosophy: Divinity, Vedas, Upanishads, Temples & Cosmos Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony
BOOKS BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI [1993-2011]-
http://vidyardhic...pot.com/
PaulRC
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2011
is this proof that anisotropy exists, or that assumptions about our own galaxy's movement is wrong? after all, all galaxies are not moving away from each other, some collide, so the dispersion from the big bang was not homogeneous based on that simple fact. the vectors of galaxies were not, obviously, directly away from the center point, otherwise, we would have been able to calculate an origin, and galaxies would not collide with each other. this might just be proof that our assumptions of our own galaxy's movement isn't as calculated. there are alot of galaxies out there, solving such a many body problem is hard.
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 07, 2011
The preferred direction / anisotropy of space-time supports neither Big Bang theory, neither Steady state or cyclic universe theory. It supports the random Universe model of dense aether theory instead. The Universe as a whole would be perfectly symmetric, but we cannot see it all, so its symmetry becomes violated. In this model the Universe appears like deeply nested fractal landscape at the human scale (~ 2 cm). At both smaller, both larger distances the shape of objects becomes more symmetric and regular and the objects are changing into spheres (atom nuclei, small stars). After certain threshold the objects are becoming irregular and fuzzy again. The symmetry violation of space-time would manifest most pronouncedly in just this region like the chirality of rotating objects. They would appear like pears with one pole more oblated than the other according to direction of rotation.
dirk_bruere
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2011
It might suggest that our visible universe is embedded in a larger space containing anisotropic mass that is "pulling" ours apart.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2011
You can think about it just like about consequence of omnidirectional space-time expansion, which manifests pronouncedly, when rotating object becomes sufficiently large or dense, so it takes a time to encircle it. We should realize, inside of large dense objects the time of light travel becomes comparable with the age of the universe outside.

Try to imagine the vortex ring traveling inside of vessel, into which the air is pumped from outside. If the vortex ring rotates slowly, then the air would become considerably more dense before one half of vortex ring reaches the center of vortex, which would result into systematical distortion of its otherwise regular shape. Giant black holes are exhibiting space-time drag in similar way, like the vortex rings inside of fluids, because their surface speed is comparable with speed of light. At the case when omnidirectional space-time expansion is taken into account, the space-time drag will becomes dependent on the chirality of vortex rotation.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2011
Particle jet from the initial singularity.
Noumenal
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2011
Guys, this is scary. The universe is not what it appears to be!
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (55) Sep 07, 2011
Don't wet your pants,.. needs way more verification.
Deesky
3.8 / 5 (18) Sep 07, 2011
Seems to me that this principle has been slightly but significantly modified on the quiet since it has become clear that galaxies line up in patterns of strings and voids

Nope. Besides, how would you know, as someone who habitually rejects scientific enlightenment?

The cosmological principle has always applied on large scales - much larger than individual galaxies or galaxy clusters (and does not ignore local lumpiness or variety of object types). Stuff basically looks the same in all directions. It also applies to the uniformity of physical laws throughout the universe, not just structures.

To be better informed, you should read the good book - no, not the book of fairytales, but the book of science (or wikipedia, at the very least).
Mahal_Kita
5 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2011
Basic.. We're looking at the electromagnetic spectrum, not the real thing. Who knows what the 'light' we're viewing encountered on it's way here..
Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2011
If the universes expansion is accelerating at a faster rate in one direction than another, that would suggest the universe is not in free fall. That is, it's being acted on by an external force. Now that IS interesting
YawningDog
1.9 / 5 (18) Sep 08, 2011
The field of "cosmology" is mental masturbation for physicists in need of real jobs. The most laughable assertion is that a "Big Bang" universe has no center. What a crock of crap. The center would be exactly at the point where the alleged bang occurred.

Before someone pulls out their balloon with spots painted on it, while all spots definitely are receding from one another, the spots opposite will recede with a different velocity than an adjacent spot. That balloon is a 3 dimensional object, the center being where the un-blown up balloon started its expansion.

A century-plus ago physicists could perform experiments in their labs. Today the inexpensive experiments have been done and to gain professional recognition one needs multi-million dollar equipment...meaning there's a limited number of opportunities available. Hence the mass movement of physics majors into the pastime of inventing vivid creation stories. Bah, humbug.

I suppose it's better than being unemployed.
hard2grep
2 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
I realize the idea that the universe is considered evenly dispersed at the right scale but do not agree with it. By the way The universe already expanded before matter condensed its way into existence. What happens when you put a bag of hot air in a refrigerator? you get condensation. getting back on subject, Look around you at the world. The only isotropy is what we have created. Even the universe, at the largest scales, looks like foam. When was the last time you saw a bubble bath with bubbles all the same size. Numbers form straight lines, not nature. We may need A and B before we can gamble on C's approximation and we haven't been here recording long enough to see the full pattern.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2011
you should read up about how the universe is expanding and then you'll hopefully understand why their is no center of the universe.
Deesky
4.7 / 5 (26) Sep 08, 2011
The field of "cosmology"...

Why the quotes?

...is mental masturbation for physicists in need of real jobs.

What it requires is mental acuity, discipline and collaboration - qualities not necessarily required for masturbation. And it's more of a real job than many others I could name (like currency speculators and derivative traders).

The most laughable assertion is that a "Big Bang" universe has no center.

It's laughable because you do not understand the basic principles, as exemplified by your next comment:

"The center would be exactly at the point where the alleged bang occurred."

Before someone pulls out their balloon with spots painted on it...

That's part of your problem - you rely on simplified analogies and then pick holes in the analogy where is breaks down, instead of trying to understand the actual concepts behind the analogy.
more...
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (21) Sep 08, 2011
A century-plus ago physicists could perform experiments in their labs. Today the inexpensive experiments have been done and to gain professional recognition one needs multi-million dollar equipment

That's progress. All the low-hanging fruit has already been picked (mostly), so to make further progress you need access to sophisticated instrumentation, laboratories and collaborative networks. The days of the genius scientist working alone in his study are long gone.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (15) Sep 08, 2011
I realize the idea that the universe is considered evenly dispersed at the right scale but do not agree with it.

Why not? Have you ever seen the large scale cosmic web images which look very much like the nueral netweork of the brain? It looks the same in bulk propery in all directions.

By the way The universe already expanded before matter condensed its way into existence

True.
What happens when you put a bag of hot air in a refrigerator? you get condensation. getting back on subject

Okay, but what was the point of the bag of hot air in the fridge?

Look around you at the world. The only isotropy is what we have created.

Nope. The following natural phenomena are isotropic: cell walls, crystals, the visible universe, light speed in a vacuum, etc.
Deesky
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2011
Even the universe, at the largest scales, looks like foam. When was the last time you saw a bubble bath with bubbles all the same size.

They need not all be IDENTICAL in size for isotropy to apply. It would mean that the the mass density of the bubbles is a function of observer radius only and that there can be no preferred axis for other physical attributes.

Numbers form straight lines, not nature.

Newton's First Law: an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Pyle
5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2011
Deesky, you missed one ... and from my favorite new poster.
If the universes expansion is accelerating at a faster rate in one direction than another, that would suggest the universe is not in free fall. That is, it's being acted on by an external force.
Universe in free fall? Words with meaning having no apparent meaning when being used together.

But to the second part, possibly. Maybe being acted upon by an internal force.

I predict this observation will be worked into the galaxy handedness conversation. If the universe is spinning, as some are inclined to speculate, it could provide some explanation for increased expansion in regions. Somebody with math skills will throw an epicycle at this observation and make a formula fit.
Osiris1
not rated yet Sep 08, 2011
Even so called 'solutions' are not homogeneous! In fact, short term solutional near-non-homogenaiety is a problem in chemical quantitative analyses with regard to repeatability and precision. Just because one dropped a bit of nitrate into a solvent such as water does not mean that that new solute diffused immediately, uniformly throughout the solution. Molucules take time to travel and do not 'know' their 'place'. And so it is on a cosmological scale....there are some parts of space not populated, and some evident attractors beyond our 'view' (pesky 'speed of light' thing) that may be quite massive and stretching space in their direction. Maybe some enormous black hole has gone beyond a limit and torn a hole in the universe...and our universe is going 'down the drain' at the speed on light somewhere in a galaxy far far away.
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2011
The universe is not expanding, it is rotating.

Antonio Saraiva
DavidMcC
2 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2011
Basic.. We're looking at the electromagnetic spectrum, not the real thing. Who knows what the 'light' we're viewing encountered on it's way here..


It still shows an asymmetry that wasn't supposed to be there.

For some time, I have had the idea that the universe is not only a black hole in a much larger "mother" universe, but also that dark energy was due to the release of gravitational energy during a collision with a "sister" black hole. Assuming it is real, this asymmetry is consistent with such a merging.
bluehigh
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2011
.. I have had the idea ..

-DavidMcC

Your first and only? Any evidence or just another pointless wild guess?

baudrunner
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2011
YawningDog has made an interesting point. If, as cosmologists agree, that there was nothing before the "big bang", then logically there can be no place in nothing for anything to have begun. Yet, here we are, and there must of course be a logical starting point for everything to begin.

The discovery by these Chinese researchers is fully in keeping with my model of creation, wherein creation is an ongoing process which occurs perpetually at the periphery of our Universe. Since the accumulation and subsequent organization of newly created matter is a random process, then gravity fields will vary from one place to the next, and the result is the observation written up in this article. Makes perfect sense to me. After all, how can an infinite amount of matter result from a finite event, which is what a bang is? I am confident that I am right, and that the astro-physics community will eventually come around.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2011
f, as cosmologists agree, that there was nothing before the "big bang", then logically there can be no place in nothing for anything to have begun.

If you want to go down that philosophical road then you have to go to the end of it:

If there is 'nothing' before the big bang then that means no space. But it ALSO means no time (since time isn't defined when you have a state in which nothing changes. Arguably 'nothingness isn't even such a state because being 'nothingness' it has no state description - i.e. there is no property you can ascribe to it; not even time).

So we have a 'state' with no space and no time. How long does it last? Well, without time it'll be over immediately. So by this argument a universe of some shape or form has no alternative BUT to exist. (Why it is exactly the way we observe it to be is another question.)

Existence exists because the existence of its opposite is a logical fallacy. (paraphrased from Heidegger's definition of what 'existence' is)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2011
as cosmologists agree, that there was nothing before the "big bang",


And no. Cosmologists don't 'agree' on that - you just made that up.

Cosmologist say that they can't look there because our current models (Quantum mechanics, and Relativity) break down at that point. The state 'before' the big bang seems to be outside the scope of cosmology (though there are some interesting research going on with the CMB to check out if we had a Big Bounce - but that just moves the goalpost to some time when all these bounces started)

Especially since it's hard to argue for a 'before' when it isn't clear whether there is a timeline at all at that point - without which no form of causality (and hence science as we currently know it) is possible.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2011
Oops..Hegel, not Heidegger. My bad.
EdMoore
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2011
"The closest thing to infinite this side of the putative creator entity."

God measures the universe at about the width of His hand, but conversely, He has "put eternity in your heart".
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2011
God measures the universe at about the width of His hand, but conversely, He has "put eternity in your heart".

And you can argue that this statement is true because....?
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (50) Sep 08, 2011
A question; In galactic clusters small enough that they're prevented from being effected by Hubble expansion due to gravitation (they do not change size), wouldn't this imply they are therefore moving through (the expanding) space and so subject to relativistic mass increase from an observers perspective? Would this be considered free fall? Wouldn't this effect galactic /cluster rotation? Are the effects of 'dark matter', homogenous through all space despite Hubble accelerated expansion? If not, hmmmm.
krwhite
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
Center XYZ = Sum of Atom XYZ's / Number of Atoms ... (please don't hate me)
Moebius
2 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2011
There has always been and always will be time. It's just that there may have been a time and may be in the future when there is no point of reference. Time is meaningless without a point of reference. For us it's the speed of the chemical reactions in our bodies. These are relatively fast compared to cosmological events so for us time blazes relative to universal events. If our time reference was outside the normal universe, time would be constant and unaffected by any physics in the universe.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2011
There has always been and always will be time.

Why? Do you have any reason to postulate this?

Time is a measure based on entropy (by observing whether entropy increases or decreases globally in a sequence of events we can determine whether the sequence is 'forward' in time or 'backward' in time ). When you go to hypothetical states (like 'before the Big Bang') that type of definition dosn't work anymore. As you say yourself:
Time is meaningless without a point of reference

How can you hav a point of reference in 'nothingness' (or in a homogeneous mass like we get at the heat death of the universe)

If our time reference was outside the normal universe,

That doesn't solve the issue - it just moves the goal post (because what is THAT time measured relative to?)
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (56) Sep 08, 2011
No, time is not a measure based on entropy. Entropy is an epiphenomenon. In fact given a system in a particular state the laws of thermodynamics say that entropy will increase in both directions of time. That a lower entropy existed in the past for a given system is a hypothesis, not a law of nature.

In fact there has never been a discovery of a 'time entity', that exists independently of it's application. Time is merely conceptual construct to order experience. That is it. We compare a number of cycles of one event to that of another. This is all time is. SR shows that the presence of mass-energy somehow effects the results we would get.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2011
Time is merely conceptual construct to order experience

Well, that's the point. We order things based on experience that go from less entropy to more.
Noticing a splashed egg assemble itself and jump up on a table would leave us to conclude that we are seeing a time reversed process. Even though such a process is perfectly possible in this universe in a global forward time case it is also highly more improbable than the reverse case.

When you have a uniform state (i.e. homogeneous distribution of energy) with only the occasional chance fluctuation then you won't be able to tell whether you're seeing a time reversed process or not. Time makes no sense in such a state.

Space and time (and energy/matter) are intertwined. You can't have the one without the other.
Noumenal
3 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2011
Don't wet your pants,.. needs way more verification.


A noumenon verificationist?? That's far scarier than a universe not playing by the rules!
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (51) Sep 08, 2011
Don't wet your pants,.. needs way more verification.


A noumenon verificationist?? That's far scarier than a universe not playing by the rules!


Well, that's not possible of course, but, as a hypothesis it is useful in differentiating reality as conceptualized from phenomenal reality which inherently involves a mind. It's where I disagree with the 'copenhagen' interpretation of qm, that is, there IS an underlying reality. It's just that we can't get out of our own epistemological way to come to know it as it is in itself.

btw, you stole my screen name :)
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (49) Sep 08, 2011
@antialias_physorg, OK, I see in what sense you meant it. Yes, it would explain why we evolved with the intuition of time,... but there is no physical time.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (49) Sep 08, 2011
as a hypothesis it is useful in differentiating reality as [un]conceptualized from phenomenal reality which inherently involves a mind


Oops, I meant "unconceptualized",... differentiating reality as conceptualized from that unconceptualized.
Deesky
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2011
In galactic clusters small enough that they're prevented from being effected by Hubble expansion due to gravitation (they do not change size), wouldn't this imply they are therefore moving through (the expanding) space and so subject to relativistic mass increase from an observers perspective?

Galaxies and galaxy clusters do not have large peculiar motions (ie, they're not hurtling through space at relativistic speeds) - the expansion rate of the universe does not affect their peculiar velocities. So the answer to your question is no.

Would this be considered free fall? Wouldn't this effect galactic/cluster rotation?

No, for above reason.

Are the effects of 'dark matter', homogenous through all space despite Hubble accelerated expansion?

As far as it's currently known, the answer is yes (CMB measurements also support this). But there will be a time when the expansion overwhelms gravity and no more structures can form (if current trends continue).
VitalStatistic63
not rated yet Sep 08, 2011
Straight Copy and Paste from http://www.physor...ter.html

I have often wondered about the case of a cyclic universe. Why do we assume that the universe would expand and contract in all directions symmetrically? If we imagine the universe as a giant ball, is it possible that the ball could be elongated in one axis and squashed in the other two? Is it then possible that it could collapse in say the X direction, while it still has some depth in the Y and Z directions. Is it possible for it to collapse down to a flat 2D disk, then re-expand in that single axis while the other 2 axes are still contracting? If it were a cyclic universe, it would be likely that this be the case, and that we would not be in the first cycle, and therefore we should be able to detect some difference in the expansion or contraction depending on which direction we look.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (50) Sep 08, 2011
In galactic clusters small enough that they're prevented from being effected by Hubble expansion due to gravitation (they do not change size), wouldn't this imply they are therefore moving through (the expanding) space and so subject to relativistic mass increase from an observers perspective?


Galaxies and galaxy clusters do not have large peculiar motions (ie, they're not hurtling through space at relativistic speeds) - the expansion rate of the universe does not affect their peculiar velocities. So the answer to your question is no.


I don't think you understood, but it doesn't matter, I was way off. With Hubble constant of only 75km/sec/megaparsec a typical galaxy cluster is way too tiny.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Sep 09, 2011
.. I have had the idea ..

-DavidMcC

... just another pointless wild guess?



Far from it, bluehigh. On this site, much of it came out in a debate some months ago. Can't remember the thread title or the name of my opponent, unfortunately. Main thing is, I showed how a multiverse could easily be the natural consequence of quantum gravity, if you have the right version of it. A great deal flows from it, in terms of explaining the stranger facts of cosmology, and, to me, it is the best atheist cosmology. Sorry I haven't the time to find the old thread, or go through it all again here.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Sep 10, 2011
BTW, bluehigh, this was certainly not my "first and only" idea in science. I also showed the world (on the Richard Dawkins website) how natural selection lead to the "inverted" retina, and how this was a crucial development in animal evolution. I coulld list several more, but, as they are not the topic of the current thread, will not say more.
How many good ideas have you had?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2011
Why do we assume that the universe would expand and contract in all directions symmetrically?

Because of the conservation laws we observe (angular momentum, energy, etc. )...and also because the CMB seems to be exceedingly uniform.
Aliensarethere
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2011
"According to the cosmological principle, there is no special place or direction in the universe when viewed on the cosmic scale. The assumption enabled Copernicus to propose that Earth was not the center of the universe"

The cosmological principle came after Copernicus, first clearly stated by Newton.
Aliensarethere
5 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2011
Also, Copernicus stated that the Sun is the center of the universe, in violation of the cosmological principle.
Shootist
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2011
"The closest thing to infinite this side of the putative creator entity."

God measures the universe at about the width of His hand, but conversely, He has "put eternity in your heart".


Who said anything about God? If our Universe was created by action from Outside; it was as likely by an omniscient, omnipotent Sky-Father, as by an other-dimensional alien philosopher-scientist-engineer tinkering with the forces of his Universe.

Or quantum tunneling.
gimpypoet
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2011
if a point(singularity)exploded ina no gravity space,the explosion would spread out in all directions,but would not have any chance to be a perfect sphere.expand this to the size of the universe and this would explain the results presented in the article.the biggest explosions is space, stars, when they explode(supernova),they dont expand evenly into a ball. our sun isnt a perfect sphere,our observations of other galaxies apear as flatened disks not spheres and why should the universe be any different?the whole universe is not visible to us, so any theory(guess could never be "proven",we will never see what is on the other side pulling or pushing us.why is it that the galaxies we can observe are not spheres but are flat with galactic planes and central bulges.the clouds like the large and small magelanic are not uniform,the ort cloud is not a sphere,with all of them rotating,so should the universe.this could be theDE/DMsolution. god started evolution turning serpent to a snake in eden?
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2011
Don't wet your pants,.. needs way more verification.


I suspect that what we perceive to be the laws of the universe ultimately mean nothing.

Proof of anisotropy would actually make the entire philosophy of modern science obsolete, not just cosmology.

If the laws of physics can change with space and time, the dating the age of objects or events on earth or in the universe becomes impossible, for example, since time and laws could have been different when the solar system was younger and in a different location in the galaxy, or the galaxy in a different location in the universe.

In the Bible, for example, when God creates the universe, each of the first 5 days we see events which would not normally happen with existing laws of physics, including the concept of "day" and "Light" existing before stars, the Sun or the Moon.

At any rate, evidence for changes in the laws of the universe would tend to lend some scientific support for special creation by God.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2011
gimpypoet:

You ignored your own answer.

Gravity combined with angular momentum, i.e. "rotation" is what causes objects in space to be eliptical or disks, rather than spheres.

---

As for the order of the universe, understanding order requires understanding the laws involved, but we don't "really" know the laws of physics. We know some mathematical relationships which seem to work well enough within certain classes of problems and to within margin of error, BUT there are actually so many unknowns, and indeed, an unknown number of unknowns.

The physicist believes he is going to find all the unknowns, assign values to them, and have some grand mathematical scheme that works like clockwork to within margin of error.

In reality, the universe may not be that way. The number of unknown variables and hidden "laws" may number in the thousands.

In reality, if you changed just one particle, or one wave, or one quanta of anything, you would no longer have the same universe.
DavidMcC
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2011
Nanobanano: "Proof of anisotropy would actually make the entire philosophy of modern science obsolete, not just cosmology."

No, just "single universe"/"only one Big Bang" cosmology.
gimpypoet
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2011
Didn"t mean to ignore or provide any answers.the fact is we can't "know" all the types of matter now,but still are trying to make a conclusion.time means something to us on earth,and may not mean the same on another planet with longer cycles than we have.or shorter.gravity may operate on similar principals.humans always seek to prove we are the center of all,this isn't true.we perceive that which is important to us,but it may not matter anywhere else.we can only "guess" how many molecules are in a glass of water,but can acuratele surmise that matter is "missing". it is simply unaccounted for with our crude technology. making up a name for missing matter,despite the fact that we can't determine it's composition is foolhardy, and takes away credibility of the needed research.we can't "see" our whole galaxy,yet have determind how much matter is contained in it.this is a guess, no mater how educated or acurate it might be.no slippery slope,just hillbillie logic,period.
yyz
5 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2011
"making up a name for missing matter,despite the fact that we can't determine it's composition is foolhardy, and takes away credibility of the needed research"

Tell that to Enrico Fermi, who coined the term "neutrino" in 1934, twenty-two years before its eventual discovery: http://en.wikiped...#History
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2011
"God measures the universe at about the width of His hand..." - Flatch

Is he using a simple spatial metric or some space/time metric.

Curious minds want to know.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2011
"if a point(singularity)exploded ina no gravity space,the explosion would spread out in all directions,but would not have any chance to be a perfect sphere." - Gimpy

Since you have provide no asymmetry in your initial conditions, the exact contrary must be true.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2011
"If our Universe was created by action from Outside. - Shootist

By definition there is no outside our universe.

How much bigger can everything be?
Callippo
not rated yet Sep 12, 2011
How much bigger can everything be?

The universe is much bigger than it looks, according to a study of the latest observations. I presume, it's infinite - it's actually the lack of postulates what motivates me into such an assertion.

http://www.techno...v/26333/
Raygunner
not rated yet Sep 12, 2011
I wonder if the increased acceleration observed is in the direction of the Great Attractor? That could explain a few things. I can't seem to correlate the direction towards the constellation Vulpecula in relation to the Great Attractor although they seem to be in the same general area, slightly to the right and north of the galactic center. The Great Attractor maps don't include a constellation overlay that I can find and I'm busy at work and I - have a lot of excuses!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2011
Oops..Hegel, not Heidegger. My bad.
No difference. Null reference.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2011
"I can't seem to correlate the direction towards the constellation Vulpecula in relation to the Great Attractor although they seem to be in the same general area"

The Great Attractor consists of a number of galaxy clusters located behind the Milky Way's "Zone Of Avoidance", with member clusters in Centaurus, Hydra, Puppis and Norma (the massive cluster Abell 3267 is thought to lie near the center of the GA): http://arxiv.org/...99v1.pdf

Looking at the distribution of galaxy clusters at that distance and beyond, the GA unlikely to be related to a distant unseen mass in Vulpecula.
bobhuang
5 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2011
Basic science and the applications have given the lazy one book religious simpletons all the convenience of mordern living and the longer life span. Shame on them even dare to comment on this or similar sites.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2011
making up a name for missing matter,despite the fact that we can't determine it's composition is foolhardy, and takes away credibility of the needed research

Tell that to Enrico Fermi, who coined the term "neutrino" in 1934, twenty-two years before its eventual discovery: http://en.wikiped...#History


Fermi's term did not confuse the public; there was no PR for the neutrino.
Nowadays, however, the vast majority of laymen does talk about "DarkMatter" without knowing or understanding the scientific background of the concept. It's a disservice to the public; the contrary of enlightenment.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2011
Nowadays, however, the vast majority of laymen does talk about "DarkMatter" without knowing or understanding the scientific background of the concept. It's a disservice to the public;

Well, nowadays the public asks where their tax dollars are going - and it wants it in terms that aren't too complicated. That science, however, is complicated stuff seems to escape most people. They just think that everything can be dumbed down to teh point where everyone understands it fully.

So the public gets what it asks for (and what it deserves). Dumbed down facts.
That they then go ahead and further distort these facts - full well knowing that the subject is over their heads - is not the entirely the fault of scientists.

There's many example on this very site of people who write comments who demand explantions but AT THE SAME TIME demand that no learning whatsoever be involved in understanding the issue.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 17, 2011
The universe is not expanding, it is rotating.

Antonio Saraiva


So this big bang thing never really happened? Just checking.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 17, 2011
...All the low-hanging fruit has already been picked (mostly)

Well there's still lots of planets out there as at http://mattbille....pc.html. You might even get lucky and find a comet or asteroid.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 17, 2011
...Deesky, you missed one ... and from my favorite new poster.
So it seems. Would that make me a poster child?

...the universe is not in free fall. That is, it's being acted on by an external force
What I was trying to say was that not in free fall would mean being acted on by an external force.

...Maybe being acted upon by an internal force.
Really? You mean like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps?

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 17, 2011
...some explanation for increased expansion in regions
You mean something like higher centrifugal force in regions with more matter? Note per
http://ned.ipac.c...3_1.html

Where there is less matter than average, the expansion is faster
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 17, 2011
...our universe is going 'down the drain' at the speed on light somewhere in a galaxy far far away.

Could be. At any rate every galaxy orbiting a black hole is going down the drain.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 17, 2011
...as cosmologists agree, that there was nothing before the "big bang"
Oops! Is Roger Penrose a cosmologist?

...there must of course be a logical starting point for everything to begin
Watch out. Conventional wisdom strikes again.

...an infinite amount of matter
In this universe?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Sep 17, 2011
...By definition there is no outside our universe
Nothing visible to us, anyway.

...How much bigger can everything be?
Infinite.
derphysiker
1 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2011
The universe is not expanding, it is rotating.

Antonio Saraiva


So this big bang thing never really happened? Just checking.


Actually the big bang happened, but the universe was born spinning, see http://www.physor...mos.html

Could the rotational axis be the special direction found here?
Dave Johnson
1 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2011
"In the beginning God created...."
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 10, 2011
..."In the beginning God created...."

I was thinking it said "In the beginning there was light..." and so it happened - actually, in the beginning of this aeon there was radiation.