5 billion light years across—the largest feature in the universe

August 4, 2015 by Robert Massey
5 billion light years across—the largest feature in the universe
An image of the distribution of GRBs on the sky at a distance of 7 billion light years, centred on the newly discovered ring. The positions of the GRBs are marked by blue dots and the Milky Way is indicated for reference, running from left to right across the image. Credit: L. Balazs

A Hungarian-US team of astronomers have found what appears to be the largest feature in the observable universe: a ring of nine gamma ray bursts – and hence galaxies - 5 billion light years across. The scientists, led by Prof Lajos Balazs of Konkoly Observatory in Budapest, report their work in a paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are the most luminous events in the universe, releasing as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun does over its 10 billion year lifetime. They are thought to be the result of massive stars collapsing into black holes. Their huge luminosity helps astronomers to map out the location of distant galaxies, something the team exploited.

The GRBs that make up the newly discovered ring were observed using a variety of space- and ground-based observatories (the sample is listed in the Gamma Ray Burst Online Index). They appear to be at very similar distances from us – around 7 billion light years – in a circle 36° across on the sky, or more than 70 times the diameter of the Full Moon. This implies that the ring is more than 5 billion light years across, and according to Prof Balazs there is only a 1 in 20,000 probability of the GRBs being in this distribution by chance.

Most current models indicate that the structure of the cosmos is uniform on the largest scales. This 'Cosmological Principle' is backed up by observations of the early universe and its microwave background signature, seen by the WMAP and Planck satellites. Other recent results and this new discovery challenge the principle, which sets a theoretical limit of 1.2 billion light years for the largest structures. The newly discovered ring is almost five times as large.

"If the ring represents a real spatial structure, then it has to be seen nearly face-on because of the small variations of GRB distances around the object's centre. The ring could though instead be a projection of a sphere, where the GRBs all occurred within a 250 million year period, a short timescale compared with the age of the universe."

A spheroidal ring projection would mirror the strings of clusters of galaxies seen to surround voids in the universe; voids and string-like formations are seen and predicted by many models of the cosmos. The newly discovered ring is however at least ten times larger than known voids.

Prof Balazs comments: "If we are right, this structure contradicts the current models of the universe. It was a huge surprise to find something this big – and we still don't quite understand how it came to exist at all."

The team now want to find out more about the ring, and establish whether the known processes for galaxy formation and large scale structure could have led to its creation, or if astronomers need to radically revise their theories of the evolution of the cosmos.

Explore further: Researchers learn more about the possible role of gamma ray bursts on life extinction in the universe

More information: "A giant ring-like structure at 0.78 < z < 0.86 displayed by GRBs." MNRAS (September 21, 2015) Vol. 452 2236-2246 DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv1421

Related Stories

Possibly the most distant object known

July 18, 2011

The most distant objects in the universe are also the oldest -- or at least that is how they appear to us, because their light has had to travel for billions of years to get here. They are also extraordinarily faint since ...

Image: Smile, and the universe smiles with you

February 11, 2015

An upbeat-looking galaxy cluster appears to smile at us in a newly released image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The cluster - designated as SDSS J1038+4849 - appears to have two eyes and a nose as part of a happy ...

Recommended for you

Hubble catches a transformation in the Virgo constellation

December 9, 2016

The constellation of Virgo (The Virgin) is especially rich in galaxies, due in part to the presence of a massive and gravitationally-bound collection of over 1300 galaxies called the Virgo Cluster. One particular member of ...

Khatyrka meteorite found to have third quasicrystal

December 9, 2016

(Phys.org)—A small team of researchers from the U.S. and Italy has found evidence of a naturally formed quasicrystal in a sample obtained from the Khatyrka meteorite. In their paper published in the journal Scientific Reports, ...

Scientists sweep stodgy stature from Saturn's C ring

December 9, 2016

As a cosmic dust magnet, Saturn's C ring gives away its youth. Once thought formed in an older, primordial era, the ring may be but a mere babe – less than 100 million years old, according to Cornell-led astronomers in ...

125 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cijbm
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
Could this be the first observation of a Small Bang inside our Big Bang
Returners
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2015
Nine points of exploding objects isn't exactly convincing evidence of an actual "structure" of that scale.

You would need to observe this section of the sky in all spectra, and wait to see if GRB occur in an arc here more regulary than the voided space enclosed or surrounding the alleged formation....sort of like tracking Earthquakes on the "Ring of Fire".

I mean, 10 volcanoes or earthquakes on the Ring of Fire might be coincidence, but hundreds and thousands of them after a while becomes convincing. IN order to have 5 sigma cofidence that you are looking at an actual contiguous structure, you'd need to oberve something like 100,000 GRB along the proposed "ring" over some time period with them all being about the same distance away from us, and always along the ring more often than the surrounding voids.

As is, there could easily be 9 random GRBs in 9 random galaxies about the same distance from us.

I saw Mickey Mouse in a cloud one time...then it disappeared.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
Could this be the first observation of a Small Bang inside our Big Bang


More likely an "ultra-massive black hole" like 100 trillion Suns or more (several hundred Milky Way Galaxy masses,) inside the central "void" holding the structure together...as a galaxy is to a solar system, and a super-cluster is to a galaxy, so this would be to a super-cluster....

Assuming this isn't just "Mickey Mouse in a Cloud".

It needs to be observed on timescales of years or decades to see if future GRBs fall on the "Ring" consistently over relevant time scales. Moreover, additional points of GRB would help characterize the structure...is it a "ring" or "Torus"? Or is it a "Spheroid" with a void inside and a certain "surface thickness". This type of characterization would require perhaps several hundred reference points, so you'd need probably a few decades of observation to gather enough data to do this properly. Cephieds might be useful too.
Returners
1 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2015
This implies that the ring is more than 5 billion light years across, and according to Prof Balazs there is only a 1 in 20,000 probability of the GRBs being in this distribution by chance.


This is where you make a mistake. Even if you are correct, 1 in 20,000 (a number that sounds fabricated) is no problem in a visible universe which contains some 150 billion galaxies.

Even at those odds, there should be roughly 7,500,000 super-structures about that same size in the observable universe....Some would be closer and some would be more distant. Some would be rather regular in shape, and some might be irregular. We might even be living inside one of them....

Data from other past observations of GRBs may provide a few more useful reference points for this structure, or for other structures like it. The article doesn't really say how many years worth of observation and data from what observatories was referenced to find these objects.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
One or two of these things might be an anomaly, but if you could find several of them by combining years of GRB observations, you might be able to poke some holes in certain aspects of both GM and Relativity and Inflationary theory, because the combination of known theories have certain restraints on the size and age of wave-like structures in the Early universe. If these predictions are found to be regularly wrong, then some new values for constants may be needed, or it may be evidence of "unknown unknowns" in physics.

DM, DE, and Dark Flow would be examples of "Known Unknowns".

Dark Flow is curious because it is the most recently discovered of the three, and may be capable of generating cosmic megastructures of this type, but there is so little known about Dark Flow that it is virtually impossible to characterize it. It appears to be a non-gravitational attraction between objects, or a spatial bias, on scales that shouldn't exist. Nothing else is known.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
For me, this indicates the problem of trying to extrapolate how the universe *should* look from mathematical foundations. The cosmological principle was derived, as I understand it, from general relativity, once by Lemaitre and once by Friedmann. This principle is one of the foundational elements of the Big Band, and yet in the last ~5yrs we've discovered more and more structures in space using GRBs that clearly demonstrate how the principle is false. Despite the support the CP gets from the CMB. https://en.wikipe...ructures

This is *another* failed prediction of the model. As I continue to work on my thesis and study the primary astrophysical literature, one the key things that needs to be focused on is the predictive efficacy of the model (which, thus far is *not* strong) vs. adaptability (how well the parameters may be changed to agree with unexpected observations).
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
There is a possible super-structure which shows up in the CMB. It might be worthwhile to compare the two and see if they are related.

Might be useful to observe this with the James Webb telescope as soon as time allows as well.
carlo_piantini
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
I'm particularly skeptical of the CMB, and its source. When I go back and study the literature, how many alternative sources for the CMB am I going to see proposed? How many attempts to validate or falsify those alternatives? How many attempts to falsify the idea that it is *exclusive* from a primordial bang? How rigorously was then done in past - particularly when the predicted temperature of the radiation was *significantly* higher than what we've actually detected.

My entire opinion regarding cosmology is the need for massively more skepticism, and a need to several restrict the use of theoretical mechanisms in their application. When it comes to the CMB, the fact that it offers very strong support for the BB model is only one side of the story. If the attempts haven't been made to *falsify* the hypothesis by ruling out any other alternative, the situation may be a large case of confirmation bias.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
*severely restrict the use of theoretical mechanisms. Pardon the typo.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
The CMB apparently "cools" through two mechanisms:

1)Cosmic Red Shift via space-time expansion.

2) Photon density decrease, again via spact-time expansion.

So when the universe is twice as big, there will be half as many CMB photons per unit of volume, and they will have twice as long of a wavelength, therefore being much, much "cooler" in both regards.

EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
I'm particularly skeptical of the CMB, and its source. When I go back and study the literature, how many alternative sources for the CMB am I going to see proposed? How many attempts to validate or falsify those alternatives? How many attempts to falsify the idea that it is *exclusive* from a primordial bang? How rigorously was then done in past - particularly when the predicted temperature of the radiation was *significantly* higher than what we've actually detected.

My entire opinion regarding cosmology is the need for massively more skepticism, and a need to several restrict the use of theoretical mechanisms in their application. When it comes to the CMB, the fact that it offers very strong support for the BB model is only one side of the story. If the attempts haven't been made to *falsify* the hypothesis by ruling out any other alternative, the situation may be a large case of confirmation bias.


There have been many, many attempts to rule out the BB.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2015
There have been many, many attempts to rule out the BB.


Fantastic! I look forward to learning about them. Thanks for the heads up. In reference to the CMB, could you provide me with any primary references?
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2015
For me, this indicates the problem of trying to extrapolate how the universe *should* look from mathematical foundations. The cosmological principle was derived, as I understand it, from general relativity, once by Lemaitre and once by Friedmann. This principle is one of the foundational elements of the Big Band, and yet in the last ~5yrs we've discovered more and more structures in space using GRBs that clearly demonstrate how the principle is false. Despite the support the CP gets from the CMB. https://en.wikipe...ructures

This is *another* failed prediction of the model. As I continue to work on my thesis and study the primary astrophysical literature, one the key things that needs to be focused on is the predictive efficacy of the model (which, thus far is *not* strong) vs. adaptability (how well the parameters may be changed to agree with unexpected observations).


The Cosmological principle first came from Newton. Hope its false.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
The cosmological principle may be false. It seems axiomatic, sort of like the axiom that "the laws of the unverse are the same for all of space and time".

People don't follow the second axiom either, because the Inflationary model actually violates that axiom, since inflation would have to start, and then stop for no apparent reason. My problem with inflation is that if we accept one change in the laws then there "may" be changes in other laws, such as gravity or electromagnetism or the speed of light, etc, and we would have no real way of knowing it was happening.

Both axioms may be false, however if they are both false, then most of astronomy and cosmology can be thrown in the trash can and be considered a signficant waste of time. HOw do you "study" the universe according to the "scientific method" if the laws are changing throughout space and time?
Ultron
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2015
1 to 20 000 sounds like low probability, but when we take in account how big is the Universe, it could be easily an accidental aligning of GRBs.
EnsignFlandry
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2015
There have been many, many attempts to rule out the BB.


Fantastic! I look forward to learning about them. Thanks for the heads up. In reference to the CMB, could you provide me with any primary references?


I no longer have access to primary references. Hans Alfven had an alternative to both the BB and CMB based on plasma cosmology, I think he called it., and there is the discredited tired light proposal. The BB violates our common sense that something can't appear out of nothing, going back to Parmenides, so many didn't accept it.
shavera
5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
Carlo, the CP is something astronomers know to be "false" on some scales. It's like how we know Newton's gravity explains *most* planets' motions... but doesn't explain the "extreme" case of Mercury. And so when you go to Mercury, you need a solution that is an approximation "closer to the truth."

The equations of GR are insanely hard to solve. Ridiculous. So, when we started out, we tried solutions with simple symmetries. What about a spherical mass? What if it spins? Has a charge? What about a uniform, boundary free volume of mass, radiation, and momentum?

Are each solution *perfectly* true to reality? No. They're just approximations to the best of our ability to solve them.

---

So next we must ask, do these approximations fit what we observe? When they don't fit what we observe, how much do the assumptions of the simplification affect the approximation we make?
AGreatWhopper
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
Ultron, did any of you fools read the article and do the maths? The 1:20,000 is the odds GIVEN the size of the universe. It's not like saying 1:20,000 people, there are billions of people, so there are many examples. It's a joint probability. If you want to do it that way, the stat is indicating that you would need 20,000 universes as large as our for that to happen by chance. Reading if fundamental, but then, you can't do the maths, can you?

As it says below the comment box, "Brevity is the soul of wit". Once again feckless returners shows himself to be totally witless.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2015
Overall, we find that the solution for the uniformly dense, boundary free volume, known as the FLRW metric, actually matches *pretty well* what we observe. It predicts that objects should be moving away from each other at some known, predictable rate. And, generally, speaking, that's what we observe.

But sometimes, galaxies are moving closer together, rather than further apart? Why is that? Ah, well it turns out that when you create a combined equation, one of the expansion of the universe, but also with a mass in it, we see that expansion doesn't happen until you're "far enough" away from the massive body. When you're closer to the massive body, you have something that is approximately like Newton's gravity.

So, when we observe filamentary structures throughout the universe, that's a deviation from the assumption of uniform density. But it matches the prediction by the slightly more "true" approximation of expansion + localized mass.
shavera
5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
To address your CMB problems, I'd say you should read up on the "Baryon Acoustic Oscillations." This is, to me, one of the most remarkable discoveries ever to happen in astronomy.

We observe all these galaxies and stuff. We find, in the conventional view, that we don't know about all the kinds of mass in the universe. So we have some prediction of how much mass there should be from that. We see how much "normal matter," that we understand, there is.

So we can use this information to put together an "early universe" state where everything is still so dense and hot that it's a more-or-less uniform plasma. When vibrations pass through this material, they're like sound waves. Some areas are higher pressure or lower pressure, according to those sound waves.

Then we go and measure the CMB, and the BAO, a measure of the "sound waves" in the CMB, we find it *really well* matches the predictions of how much DM and DE we predicted from other observations.
carlo_piantini
4 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2015
I always appreciate your responses shavera, you point me towards very interesting subjects in the primary material. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll keep referenced as I continue to study. I've got no rebuttal this time around, save for my continued skepticism as a novice.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
I always appreciate your responses shavera, you point me towards very interesting subjects in the primary material. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll keep referenced as I continue to study. I've got no rebuttal this time around, save for my continued skepticism as a novice.

Since you clearly state that you have no knowledge, what makes you so sceptical ?
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
The CMB only varies by something like 1/10,000th of a degree kelvin, which sounds like a small number, but if you look at the maps of the CMB which are color-coded, you can see some "structures" which are hotter or colder than the average, and take up significant portions of the sky, rather than just a few grains spread around.

https://en.wikipe...4096.png

You can clearly see large areas that are consistently cooler than other areas, and vice-versa.

Now as I said, 1/10,000th of a degree isn't much if you are thinking about the surface area of a camera lense, but if you are thinking about the scale of the "structures" those temperature differences represent, then we are talking about colossal amounts of actual difference in energy from the "most blue" regions to the "most red" regions on the map.

Considering this a map of the entire sky, the "structures" must be several billion LY across when scaled to the map.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
Shavera:

Of course our mathematical models are at best approximations.

I showed via both set theory and incompleteness theory that it is impossible to produce a set of equations which describes the universe perfectly, we can only hope to come up with better and better approximations as we discover new forces, or new "missing" terms in existing force equations, etc.

Maybe the notions of "force" and "Energy" etc, are slightly flawed, and one day we may need to totally re-write the very foundations of physics in order to truly understand concepts involved in mega-structures of the universe, DM, DE, Dark Flow...these are getting harder and harder to deal with given the existing paradigm, as there isn't even a hypothesis of what Dark Flow is, and Dark Energy has neither particle-like nor wave-like properties, given the "non-dilution" property.

Gravity and other "force-like entities" dilute in both Newtonian and Einstein mechanics. DE does not seem to dilute.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
I no longer have access to primary references. Hans Alfven had an alternative to both the BB and CMB based on plasma cosmology, I think he called it., and there is the discredited tired light proposal. The BB violates our common sense that something can't appear out of nothing, going back to Parmenides, so many didn't accept it.


Post-doctoral physicists do not adamantly believe in the Big Bang, and certainly not as "the beginning" of the universe.

They just present it on television documentaries and text books so strongly because they believe it is the best theory at present.

When watching a BBC documentary involving many different theories by post-doctoral physicists, the question was asked, "Who in this room believes there was something "before" the Big Bang?"

Nearly everyone raised their hands, including some of the people who worked on the original Inflationary model "patch" to the Big Bang, and they no longer believe it's right either.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2015
Since you clearly state that you have no knowledge, what makes you so skeptical ?


1) I clearly stated the I am a novice - I've spent the last year independently studying, and building a small lab that I will finally be able to get into and start working next month. My skill level as a novice does not mean that I know nothing. It means that I've begun, as everyone else, at the starting line.

2) Because skepticism is healthy, because no one should willingly accept an argument without being able to assess the validity of the evidence themselves, and because we are talking about the single field of science where we're dealing with massive scales, astronomical distances, and an extreme lack of ability to conduct intimate observations - so theoretical mechanisms should be applied very, very scarcely. Historically, they've been wrong more than right.

3) Because the ~40pgs of notes are have are full of contradictions and failed predictions.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
At present, True "Big Bangers" are resorting to multi-verse theories (explain away the entire universe by claiming there are an infinite number of universes with different laws, so there is then no mystery that we just happen to be in this one,) but this doesn't actually do what "physics" is supposed to do. Multi-verse theories are technically not in the same category of philosophy as the so-called "Scientific Method," even though you can in fact be very logical and scientific about those multi-verse theories. The problem is a lack of direct observation. Without direct observation of another universe, any observations of (conjectured) side-effects of those other universes will always be held in doubt and suspicion.

Additionally, Multi-verse theories are not "predictive" which is to say you can't use them to make useful predictions or machines, the way you can with conventional science theories.

Newton and Einstein allow automobiles and spacecraft. WTF has M theory done? Nothing.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
4) Because the history of this field has, to its own detriment, remained biased against laboratory models of astrophysical phenomena/mechanisms in favor of mathematical models, particularly when said phenomena deal with electromagnetism. This goes all the way back to Newton, and the last page of the Principia where he clearly outlines his belief that electromagnetism has no place is celestial mechanics - which is, mostly absolutely, incorrect. This bias has involved an unwillingness to revisit old propositions, even in the face of new observations or laboratory evidence.

5) Because, for some reason, the people I've engaged with from the astrophysical community are unwilling to admit this bias as it presents itself historically.

6) It's unproductive to have an entire field of researchers attacking scientific issues from the same perspective.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
And for comparison, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Hawking, Krauss, and Dawkins all believe the universe literally came from "absolutely nothing" at the Big Bang...a proposal which I have also adamantly proven wrong using both set theory and basic logical perception...i.e. you can't write and equation that sets the value/existence of the universe to "absolutely nothing" because you can't explain away the equation itself (which is a thing...an abstract in the least and plausibly a material object).

Moreover, the equation "1 plus negative one equals zero" is itself a subset of a larger set of math, and math is itself a sub-set of a larger set of the whole of logic. Therefore the universe cannot have come from "nothing", and we know from incompleteness theorem that there are things about this system of math and logic which will always be "True but unprovable"...at least to a person constrained by the knowledge within the system itself, in this case the Universe...
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
7) Because dark matter seems to be a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable, despite several failed predictions, the need to have multiple models of dark matter to solve different cosmological issues, or the failed LUX experiments which made no detection of dark matter whatsoever. Unless you can provide me with an experimental setup/number of failed predictions that would clearly falsify the hypothesis, it is unscientific. The Ptomelaic system worked for ~1,000yrs, on top of mountains of astronomical observations and data, despite the fact that it was completely wrong. Why? Because you could add another epicycle to explain whatever error came up. Dark matter's ability to be manipulated mathematically to explain observed phenomena is not the same as its efficacy to *predict* what we will observe, and to date, it remains at best massively contradictory, and at worst, a complete failure.
docile
Aug 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
"True but unprovable" is a problem for those who rely only on the "metaphysical naturalism" and the modern "Scientific Method" to gain knowledge....

However, "Metaphysical naturalism" and the "Scientific Method" are sub-sets of logic and sub-sets of philosophy....

You can never understand the whole of reality when you adamantly constrain yourself to sub-sets of the whole of knowledge and logic.

Are mathematical models made or approximated by beings within the uninverse flawed? YES!

Is it possible for beings constrained within the universe to produce a set of equations which completely explains and describes the universe and everything within it, without "outside help"?

The KNOWN answer since 1930 is "ABSOLUTELY NOT".

The Bible says that God created the "world" (universe) from "nothing", however this is not "absolute nothing" Krauss or Hawking believe in, because in that statement God (Logos) himself pre-dates the "nothing" he acted upon...
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
And see, what hard atheists can't get their mind around is that the Biblical notion of God is rigged against you. Even though we know for a fact there are man-made flaws in the Bible, the philosophical definition of "God" found in the Gospel of John is RIGGED against you.

"In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....He made all things and without him was not anything made which was made..."

Remember, I told you that Hawking's "equation to nothing" argument is flawed, because at the least the equation (whatever it represents in reality) must exist always, or else its source (logos) exists always, therefore absolute nothing does not exist and never did exist.

Since the equations is provably a sub-set of logic, then we know that a "greater being" than the equation itself must have always existed...

Guess what? The GREEK philosophical word for this was used by John..."Logos", which translated "WORD" in English, loses some meaning.

Returners
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
Fact is, the ancient religious peoples, the Hebrews, the Sumerians, and the Egyptians, etc, had this "meta-cognitive" part of "science" figured out long ago, even a thousand or more years prior to the Greeks.

Proving that "something is eternal" is actually easy. So easy that some of you think it is well, "It can't be that simple..." well it is.

Proving that the "eternal thing" is a consciousness is a matter of observing the fact that "eternal, causative, but un-caused" implies the ability to make decisions wholly within itself, without outside influence...

...in fact, the "creator" of the universe is not only a "Mind/Being", but it is the PUREST mind which exists and can exist, because it is the only Mind which is not inherently influenced by outside forces.

This is "meta-knowledge" beyond the scope of the so-called Scientific Method, yet if it weren't true we wouldn't be here.

You may say its unprovable, but that's okay, we have a provable theorem which predicts that.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2015
1) ... at the starting line.

Meaning knowing nothing about cosmology and astrophysics.
2) Because skepticism is healthy, because no one should willingly accept an argument without being able to assess the validity of the evidence themselves,

Expressing doubt for no other reason than the inability to check the evidence for yourself is legitimate but not very interesting.
... an extreme lack of ability to conduct intimate observations ...

There are a lot of "intimate" observations.
... theoretical mechanisms should be applied very, very scarcely.

I fail to see why. Observation and theory are complementary. They are meaningless one without the other.
Historically, they've been wrong more than right.

What part of history and which errors are you referring to?
3) Because the ~40pgs of notes are have are full of contradictions and failed predictions.

40 pgs of notes?
carlo_piantini
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
Meaning knowing nothing about cosmology and astrophysics.

Your snark is adorable :)

Expressing doubt for no other reason than the inability to check the evidence for yourself is legitimate but not very interesting.

And? I'm not here to convince anyone, and anyone who would be convinced by someone who admits themselves as a novice regularly should focus on my point about "needing more skepticism." I'm posting my thoughts in a comment thread. If they don't interest you, you're welcome to ignore them. I won't be offended.

There are a lot of "intimate" observations.

No, there aren't. Sending spacecrafts like Voyager, New Horizons, and Ulysses allow for observation up-close and personal, with multiple instruments, are the kinds of measurements I'm discussing. To say that we can study galaxies millions of miles away the same way we can a laboratory plasma is disingenuous.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
7) Because dark matter seems to be a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable,


That's because without direct observation of the alleged "entity" there is no way to prove what it is nor what force laws (or whatever interaction) it obeys, etc.

Soooo, you are correct, the DM hypothesis ends up working just like epicycles....just add more where you think they need to be, and viola, you "explain" the phenomenon without actually "explaining" anything....

The DM hypothesis is a very, very weak hypothesis in physics, because it can only be used to "post-dict" phenomena, and has no "predictive" ability, especially not until we learn to directly observe "it" whatever "it" is.

Unfortunately (hopefully not), the DM problem may be one of those things which falls into Godel's Incompleteness theorem as well, or it could just be a result of a mis-understood force-entity we "think" we understand, but don't.

Gravity may warp other gravity, which would change calcs on different scales.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
What part of history and which errors are you referring to?


Most generally, the 1950-1960's where we developed spacecrafts, satellites, and radio telescopes, and realized that the vast majority of what we though in astrophysics was proven incorrect, beginning with our own solar system. More specifically, the two case studies I am most interested in involve Birkeland, who's laboratory demonstration of the aurora was completely disregarded on theoretical grounds of space as a perfect resistor, most notably by Chapman; the other is Alfven, who's entire solar program - including the existence of magnetohydrodyamic waves themselves - was disregarded as incorrect or impossible, again largely on theoretical grounds, only to be vindicated.

And, ultimately, my *entire* thesis is about studying Alfven's criticisms, both scientifically and historically, against the astrophysical community's primary literature to see if they are valid or not.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
40 pgs of notes?


Yes, my own personal notes about astronomical news, which include:
- Numerous failed dark matter predictions
- Numerous contradictions within the model, such as dark matter observationally not interacting with itself, only to later be seen supposedly interacting with itself
- The admission that our planetary formation models are useless
- The admission that our model of predicting the sunspot cycles do not work
- Failed predictions about the structure of the heliosphere itself
- Massive blackholes existing where they absolutely should not have been seen, because they have no mechanism to possibly have grown so large so fast
- The discovery of helically structured magnetic fields in galactic jets, galaxy spiral arms, and supposedly across the entire universe

There's a lot more along those lines...
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
I can present more logical arguments for both the existence of God and the nature of God than physicists can for the existence and nature of DM, DE, etc.

Both Theists and Atheists beware.

You have been warned.

When you ignore the whole of philosophy and focus on only a tiny sub-set of thought you are bound to run into trouble at some point.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2015
@cp
So you believe in EU or something similar. Why do you beat around the bush? And why do you have a preference for a fringe theory when you are "at the starting line" (meaning you know nothing of the subject) ? You should reserve your scepsis for whatever EM theory you believe in, since Newton was right.
"DM seems to be a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable, despite several failed predictions"
This statement contains a contradiction.
manipulated mathematically to explain observed phenomena ... at best massively contradictory, and at worst, a complete failure

You make very strong statements. On what basis ? It can not be knowledge so it must be belief.
How do you know that you are not "Ptomelaic" yourself? The Ptolemaic system and EM theories of the universe have in common that they are both abandoned. True scepsis is a two-sided sword.
yob2073
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2015
It's only me, but I am sick of seeing perfectly feasible comments get drive-by systematic 1-star ratings.
Returners
1.2 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
Massive blackholes existing where they absolutely should not have been seen, because they have no mechanism to possibly have grown so large so fast


This is interesting to me too, because I found out that on average a black hole should only be able to grow by a few Suns worth of mass during the entire history of the universe, given present models of Gravity. Of course there would be the occasional black hole which could grow relatively large though star cluster collisions or galaxy collisions, but ordinary gravity and so-called isotropy should forbid those multi-million and multi-billion solar mass black holes.

I know those theories are incomplete, so I have no problem in predicting that there is probably a trillion solar mass black hole out there somewhere, and there may be 10 trillion or 100 trillion solar mass black holes, we just haven't noticed them yet...

If they exist, they probably did not form by known theoretical mechanisms.

Record is 17 billion right now.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
So you believe in EU or something similar. Why do you beat around the bush?

Because I don't *believe* in the EU model, or PC model, at all - I'm extremely interested in them, they seem to have a significant amount of new observational evidence to support them, and, historically, Alfven was right more than he was wrong, so I'm interested in revisiting his ideas - particularly due to said new evidence. I'm not beating around the bush - I've said this in almost every thread I post in...

This statement contains a contradiction.

No, it doesn't. Despite numerous failed predictions, and failed experiment runs to detect a DM particle, the model has not been considered falsified by the astrophysical community. It is *treated* as an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

You make very strong statements. On what basis ?

The notes I've been taking for the last year...
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2015
It's only me, but I am sick of seeing perfectly feasible comments get drive-by systematic 1-star ratings.


If this is in reference to me, I appreciate it. I don't think any part of my thesis is unreasonable: study the criticism of a very successful scientist, read the primary astrophysical literature, and see if the criticism holds water. It will take me several years, and will be very intensive work, but I think it's very worth-while and I will learn a lot, particularly given my close contact with plasma physics in a laboratory to verify the validity of said criticisms in plasma physics as well.
docile
Aug 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rossim22
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
Quite simply, this is a falsification of the gravitational concepts sheathed in mathematical fantasies which we call the standard model. This observation exemplifies the fact that the universe is not expanding. Therefore, the interpretation of redshift as a measurement of recessional velocity, and thus distance, is incorrect.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2015
shavera, if you ever hop back in this thread, I do have one argument:
Carlo, the CP is something astronomers know to be "false" on some scales.


The issue I take is that these observations indicate that the CP is false on scales which it *should not be.* The homogenous distribution of matter should become more and more observable as we continue to observe the universe in increasing scales. But, this structure and the others I linked to prove observationally that the principle fails at scales where it should not.

My entire problem with the CP, and if I'm not mistaken it was Popper's criticism as well, is that it doesn't make itself evident on any scale of the Universe that we *actually* observe. It's supported by the CMB, sure, but not any of the structures that we've actually seen with telescope arrays. Just the opposite - it's been falsified by said observations.
yob2073
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
If this is in reference to me


No specific reference. The forum I came from specifies the reviewer's username and allows only one vote every few minutes. It cannot be gamed. The review system on this forum allows unlimited anonymous votes by any one unique username. Can this system be turned off at the user level?
shavera
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
The issue I take is that these observations indicate that the CP is false on scales which it *should not be.*


Do you have a quantifiable assessment of what "should be"? Or is it a hunch?

I have outlined a rough strategy to determine approximate length scales using conventional physics solutions that may assist (but by no means is definitive, as I am not an expert here): https://www.reddi...ng_like/

Furthermore, I still think the best approach when we find something we don't understand is to wait. Once in a rare while, the thing we don't understand overturns some significant part of our understanding. More often, however, we find that what we already "know" explains the phenomenon well as it is, and we just hadn't thought to apply what we "know" in such a way to produce such a result.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2015
From my understanding, the supposed astronomical limit of the CP should be ~1.2B light years - astronomical scales in the range of superclusters. According to the reference I posted above (although, it's simply a Wikipedia link, please correct me if I'm wrong), anywhere in the range of ~60-260 h/Mpc, whereas these structures are already over ~450-700 h/Mpc.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
I can present more logical arguments for both the existence of God and the nature of God than physicists can for the existence and nature of DM, DE, etc.


You sure can Skippy. I have seen you do it over and over and some more overs too.

Both Theists and Atheists beware


Are you getting ready to present us with some more of those logical arguments?

You have been warned


Ol Ira-Skippy thanks you for that Cher. I would really not like to go there unaware of the things that could be Lurkering-Skippy in there.

When you ignore the whole of philosophy and focus on only a tiny sub-set of thought you are bound to run into trouble at some point.


I am too fond of you Cher to put you on the ignore listing thing, I am completely focused and you got my whole attentions. I'm ready for your logical arguments whenever you are ready to share them with us, got my pencil and got my paper and got my eraser too in case you need to change something.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
Ultron, did any of you fools read the article and do the maths? The 1:20,000 is the odds GIVEN the size of the universe. It's not like saying 1:20,000 people, there are billions of people, so there are many examples. It's a joint probability. If you want to do it that way, the stat is indicating that you would need 20,000 universes as large as our for that to happen by chance. Reading if fundamental, but then, you can't do the maths, can you?

As it says below the comment box, "Brevity is the soul of wit". Once again feckless returners shows himself to be totally witless.


The map of the CMB shows that to be wrong, as that map shows several structures of more or less that size across the "equator" of the map, and another one at the "north pole" and another one on the SW side of the map, all told about 9 or 10 of them show up in the map of the CMB at the very least.
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2015

Apophenia: I see an upside down heart. I also see the golden ratio spiral.

I think 1:20000 is high odds astronomically or geologically speaking, right?

I'm a big fan of colossal structures like the Great Sloan Wall, the Huge-LQG, the Great Attractor, or Laniakea. Most of those things have large quantities of objects involved or measurable gravitational interaction or movement. I'm not entirely sold on 9 similarly classed objects spread out over ~5B ly x ~3.5B ly ~17.5B ly^2 (as a 2-D projection on our sky) being structurally bound. I hate arguing from ignorance and incredulity but I'd like to see further evidence of interaction or effects. It'd be neat to add another landmark to the sky but I'd like more confidence that it's not apophenia.

What would be crazy is if it's actually a huge Einstein Cross of a singular lensed object at massive distance through a large dark matter filament. That would be amazing!
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2015
http://arxiv.org/...75v1.pdf

Im reading the paper to see how a more detailed view can convince me. If anyone else is interested. :)
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
From the paper's conclusion:

GRBs are very rare events superimposed on the cosmic
web identified by superclusters. Because of this, the ring is
probably not a real physical structure. Further studies are
needed to reveal whether or not the Ring could have been
produced by a low-frequency spatial harmonic of the largescale
matter density distribution and/or of universal star
forming activity.


Ok so basically this stuff is here, there's a shape to it and it's highly improbable to find this, but it's probably not part of a large gravitationally bound structure. If not is there a mechanism to cause this kind of distribution? More research required into this interesting set of circumstances. The math was beyond me throughout but they seemed to regard the CP highly. This is less buzzworthy but still cool :(
Ultron
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
Ultron, did any of you fools read the article and do the maths? The 1:20,000 is the odds GIVEN the size of the universe. It's not like saying 1:20,000 people, there are billions of people, so there are many examples. It's a joint probability. If you want to do it that way, the stat is indicating that you would need 20,000 universes as large as our for that to happen by chance. Reading if fundamental, but then, you can't do the maths, can you?


You should learn basics of astrophysics. We dont know exactly how big is Universe, so it is not possible to calculate the probability based on size of Universe. And it is even possible, that the Universe is infinite. Hopefully you realize what that would mean to this 1:20 000 estimation.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
Quote from article: "the GRBs all occurred within a 250 million year period, a short timescale compared with the age of the universe."

Looking at that depiction of the ring you'd get a first impression you're looking at a group of GRBs going off all at once.

Given the fact that GRBs have a very short duration of luminosity of just a few seconds to only a few hours, hasn't anyone yet realized that the above image of distribution is an airbrushed job? A distribution of bursts spaced over 250 million years with a duration of only a few minutes each causes someone to think this is a rare & really oddball distribution? Take a Statistics & Probability course.

By blending additional imaginative sequences of GRB Afterglow within a 1 billion year distribution, I'm sure we could also find an Einstein Cross for EF with little effort.

docile
Aug 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2015

You should learn basics of astrophysics. We dont know exactly how big is Universe, so it is not possible to calculate the probability based on size of Universe. And it is even possible, that the Universe is infinite. Hopefully you realize what that would mean to this 1:20 000 estimation.

You are a fool.
Which of these for words don't you understand?
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2015
Quote from article: "the GRBs all occurred within a 250 million year period, a short timescale compared with the age of the universe."

Looking at that depiction of the ring you'd get a first impression you're looking at a group of GRBs going off all at once.

Given the fact that GRBs have a very short duration of luminosity of just a few seconds to only a few hours, hasn't anyone yet realized that the above image of distribution is an airbrushed job? A distribution of bursts spaced over 250 million years with a duration of only a few minutes each causes someone to think this is a rare & really oddball distribution? Take a Statistics & Probability course.

Someone should help Benni to keep his big mouth shut. What a moron.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2015
I can present more logical arguments for both the existence of God and the nature of God than physicists can for the existence and nature of DM, DE, etc.

Both Theists and Atheists beware.

You have been warned.

When you ignore the whole of philosophy and focus on only a tiny sub-set of thought you are bound to run into trouble at some point.

Many more pages of nonsense to look forward to !
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2015
HOw do you "study" the universe according to the "scientific method" if the laws are changing throughout space and time?

All observations support the view that they don't.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2015
I'm particularly skeptical of the CMB, and its source. When I go back and study the literature, how many alternative sources for the CMB am I going to see proposed?

As far as I know, no viable alternative explanation exists.
Ultron
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015

You are a fool.
Which of these for words don't you understand?

Hey mytwocts, so tell me how big exactly is Universe? If you are not able to reliable tell that, then better shut up, otherwise you look like idiot.
docile
Aug 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thingumbobesquire
1.8 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2015
This is huge...
FredJose
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2015
"If we are right, this structure contradicts the current models of the universe. It was a huge surprise to find something this big – and we still don't quite understand how it came to exist at all."

I'd like ot know at what point the scientific community is going to reach a conclusion that the current model is false and should be thrown out completely.
Right now all they're doing is shore it up with more and more epi-circles to make it work - except that unlike Ptolemy's model, it doesn't even produce the right answers. Just one example is this - nobody knows how the first stars came into existence because current theory is filled with examples of proposals for star-birth that always involves an already existing one. The theory cannot even get out of the starting gates.
mytwocts
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2015

You are a fool.
Which of these for words don't you understand?

Hey mytwocts, so tell me how big exactly is Universe? If you are not able to reliable tell that, then better shut up, otherwise you look like idiot.
No one knows, so by your criterion everybody is an idiot. I stress that by any logic this includes you yourself.
What makes you a double fool-idiot is that you think, in spite of strong reminders, that the size of the universe matters in the above context. It does not. Reread those three last words aloud.
mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2015
@FJ
"If we are right, this structure contradicts the current models of the universe. It was a huge surprise to find something this big – and we still don't quite understand how it came to exist at all."

I'd like ot know at what point the scientific community is going to reach a conclusion that the current model is false and should be thrown out completely.

The part that would have to be thrown out is the correlation between redshift and distance.
That would allow the GRBs to be much closer to us and to each other. To do this only on the basis of this observation is too drastic.
... epi-circles ... Ptolemy's model ... current theory is filled with examples of proposals for star-birth that always involves an already existing one.

The oldest star contains one million (1000000) times less iron that the sun. If that is not good enough, apply equal rigor to your own ideas and fall into the Two-Edged Sword of Perfectionism.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2015
There is a large gap between features (such as the universe itself) and structures (such as cosmic filaments). So this is thin gruel.

Especially since they don't account for dynamics when they compare with LCDM structures such as clusters and voids. The famous dwarf galaxy rings around Milky Way and Andromeda - a similarly statistically rare feature - was recently first confirmed and then found out to be the prediction of dynamic behavior. (E.g. the structure was first statically compared with the dark matter halos of galaxies and was labeled 'a structure'. Later the dynamic behavior in the cosmic filament dark matter background was studied and found to group the dwarfs thusly, 'a feature'.)

That said it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2015
So, the crackpot thread... There are is a sane question for once, even if it is a strawman for unsupported criticism because everyone knows or can look up the answer:

- How much evidence to sway the consensus? Very much, seeing how many tests the current inflationary cosmology has undergone successfully. [See the nearest encyclopedia and/or the Planck legacy archives.) There are areas of tension with observations, which means science can progress. Structure formation may be one, but it is arguable since evidence for 'too large' structures aren't solid.

(And no, dark matter isn't 'unfalsifiable', because we can observe it - an observation is a hypothesis test in measurement theory. Planck has now managed to test it to 20+ sigma, so it is unlikely to go away.)

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2015
[ctd]

Here are two questions that should have been asked:

Q: Are theories "wrong more than right"?
A: Not inherently. That is a philosophic idea, and it is not supported by observation. In the last century it has become obvious that the laws underlying the physics of everyday life are completely understood. [ http://blogs.disc...erstood/ ] E.g. the process converges on robust knowledge.

Q: Is it fruitful to study fringe theories?

No. Science has been there, done that. Progress is elsewhere and laymen profit more from studying what is known because it is internally and externally consistent.

It seems from a cursory look that carlo_pantini is very confused about what science is and how it works.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015
[ctd]

The problem centers around (lack of) understanding testing, it seems. The philosophic idea of 'falsifiability' is banded around with abandon, taken to mean at least two things - competing theories until a winner, respectively not admitting tension between theory and observation - none of which is applicable.

'Falsification' is what scientists see as ability of testing, that one can test an observation/hypothesis/theory for rejection ('making it false'). Finished competition is not necessary to allow o/h/t survival under testing. Tension with theory is the same as "don't know", say because the tension is insufficiently supported and/or not well understood. See my dwarf galaxy example. Turns out that when we _do_ know, the tension disappeared.

A basic physics course should be a good basis to study measurement theory, as was necessary at my university before starting in on the more modern stuff. Not studying it is the same as being stuck in 20th century science.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015
Very much, seeing how many tests the current inflationary cosmology has undergone successfully.

Inflation was (a) never brought up explicitly and (b) a theory that is very much still in debate, where founders of the theory themselves are admitting that they no longer have confidence in the theory.

And no, dark matter isn't 'unfalsifiable', because we can observe it

Um...no, we can't. Which is the entire issue of dark matter to begin with. Dark matter has never been observed in space or in any laboratory on Earth. Gravitational lensing has been observed, as have deficiencies in galactic mass based on their rotational curves, and these have been attributed to dark matter, with varying degrees of mathematical success. Dark matter's history, even recently, is littered with failed predictions.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015
No. Science has been there, done that.


I'd offer the suggestion that you go back and thoroughly study the history of scientific progress - today's "fringe science" has, more than once, become well-accepted mainstream science within following decades - for the perfect example, I'd direct you again to Birkeland's work and the biography of his life, "The Northern Lights," by Lucy Jago. Is it fruitful for *everyone* scientist to study fringe ideas? No. To say that no one should invest time in them is patently ridiculous.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015
It seems from a cursory look that carlo_pantini is very confused about what science is and how it works.


Again, you should revisit history. The idea of what science is and how it should be conducted oscillates between two primary methods of reasoning - deductive, which lies primarily in mathematical reasoning based on assuming perfect, ideal conditions, and the inductive, which relies on direct experimentation and construction of real-world models to discern a closer understanding of similar phenomena. The present vogue is science is the former, and the fact that I simply happen to favor the latter does not mean that I don't understand how science works.

Likewise, I am not studying fringe science. I am studying a well-laid out criticism of astrophysics offered by a Nobel-prize winning plasma physicist responsible for *several* concepts used in astrophysics today, and discerning the value of that criticism.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015
I'm tired of the "we have observed dark matter" argument, as it is explicitly disingenuous. The vary nature of dark matter, as a particle that does not interact with matter in any way other than gravitationally, distinctly makes it a hypothetical mechanism that can never be observed, *except* by the *supposition* that it is responsible for the deficiency that we observe.

You can't make an observation of galactic rotation, say "hey, there's not enough mass here...", and then turn around to say "we've observed" dark matter. No, you haven't. You've observed a deficiency, and mathematically, it may be explained by *unobservable mass.* That hypothesis - not an observation - then needs to be tested against the ability to make further accurate predictions. Which dark matter *cannot do.* The model constantly runs across contradictions, failed predictions, and an inability to observe it in labs and our own galaxy.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015
The criticism is constantly thrown out that a preference for the scientific principles of the 18th and 19th century is obsolete, passe, and implies a deficiency or lack of understanding of "modern" principles. But those principles have led to a system of cosmology that constantly produces failed predictions and relies very heavily on theoretical mechanisms that cannot be studied here on Earth or modeled in a laboratory. Likewise, they've led to a theory of quantum mathematics that, despite working, is also entirely devoid of a rational, and intuitive physical theory. And more importantly, the two *greatest* scientific theories of history, GR and QM, are entirely unresolvable with one another...

I do not think the 21st century science is, on the whole, moving the correct direction. They've sacrificed rational mechanics and natural philosophy for mathematical formalism and theoretical physics. And I think this is an enormous mistake.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015
Point in case: there are entire departments of PhDs and grad students working on string theory, which is not only considered plausible, but *mathematically elegant* science - despite relying on the addition of *six* dimensions that can never be observed from our perspective of the universe.

I'm studying the primary literature from the best experimental minds and natural philosophers in history, and I'm very well entitled to criticize the current scientific atmosphere, whether or not I've gone to university or have become an expert in the scientific literature. You don't need to watch a farmer tend to his field for an entire science to evaluate the yield of his crop. The results speak for themselves.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2015

I do not think the 21st century science is, on the whole, moving the correct direction. They've sacrificed rational mechanics and natural philosophy for mathematical formalism and theoretical physics. And I think this is an enormous mistake.

You probably mean 20th century physics, since 21st century physics is a continuation of that. The 20th century is by far the most successful century EVER for theoretical physics. RT, QM, QED, the Standard Model may worry you philosophically but nowhere I see an "enormous mistake". An occasional small mistake, perhaps.
DM is incompletely observed, but there is no viable alternative explanation of the observations but the presence of an otherwise unobserved mass distribution. An alternative explanation is at present not excluded by the observations, so the DM hypothesis can still fail. So far it has not failed, though.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2015
And no, dark matter isn't 'unfalsifiable', because we can observe it

Um...no, we can't. Which is the entire issue of dark matter to begin with. Dark matter has never been observed in space or in any laboratory on Earth. Gravitational lensing has been observed, as have deficiencies in galactic mass based on their rotational curves, and these have been attributed to dark matter, with varying degrees of mathematical success. Dark matter's history, even recently, is littered with failed predictions.

Of course the DM hypothesis is falsifiable. You yourself talk about "failed predictions" (I wonder which :-| ). If a hypothesis can fail, it is falsifiable. Your earlier statement on this is a contradiction.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2015
You probably mean 20th century physics, since 21st century physics is a continuation of that. The 20th century is by far the most successful century EVER for theoretical physics.


Thank you for the correction, yes that's what I meant. However, I disagree you. Yes, my issue with QM/QED may be a philosophical one, but there is not and should not be a separation from natural philosophy and physics, which is part of my issue with the current vogue of scientific thinking in general. To have a description of the world that is *purely* mathematical formalism, and cannot be described in any physical way, to me, is still an absolute failure, despite the ability to make accurate predictions with it. Yes, that's a personal problem but I'm here posting my personal opinions - no one needs to pay them any attention if they disagree.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2015
Of course the DM hypothesis is falsifiable. You yourself talk about "failed predictions" (I wonder which :-| ). If a hypothesis can fail, it is falsifiable. Your earlier statement on this is a contradiction.


Then how many failed predictions, or failed experimental tests to detect the DM particle, have to occur before the hypothesis is considered falsified? This *is* my point, and it is not a contraction. Both have happened multiple times, and yet the theory is still treated as bulletproof. So, again, what would it take to rule out dark matter as a plausible candidate? How many more contradictions or failed runs?
docile
Aug 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015
there is not and should not be a separation from natural philosophy and physics, which is part of my issue with the current vogue of scientific thinking in general. To have a description of the world that is *purely* mathematical formalism, and cannot be described in any physical way, to me, is still an absolute failure

Again, the 20th century saw the greatest triumphs ever. How can you then talk about "failure"? How can you talk about a "purely mathematical formalism" when you are literally surrounded by practical applications of 20th century physics ? Your choice of words is a misrepresentation of reality.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2015
Of course the DM hypothesis is falsifiable. You yourself talk about "failed predictions" (I wonder which :-| ). If a hypothesis can fail, it is falsifiable. Your earlier statement on this is a contradiction.

Then how many failed predictions, or failed experimental tests to detect the DM particle, have to occur before the hypothesis is considered falsified? This *is* my point, and it is not a contraction

No predictions of the DM hypothesis have failed. And to say that a theory is not falsifiable when at the same time claiming that it has been falsified is a contradiction. A contradiction in terminis. The parrot is dead! It's met its maker, etc etc.
All your claims only serve to prepare the reader for some theory that you keep up your sleeve.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2015
"Contrary to those desires, quantum theory does not describe physical reality. What it does is provide an algorithm for computing probabilities for the macroscopic events ("detector clicks") that are the consequences of our experimental interventions." - Quantum Mechanics Needs No Interpretation - http://www.phy.pk...0070.pdf

This is why I consider it a failure. The greatest theory in *physics* of the 20th century is a mathematical heuristic that *doesn't describe the physical world.* It's use in building practical applications is why I'm not here raving about QM being wrong or an illusion, I just think that from the standpoint of natural philosophy - which *should* be a critical part of physics, in my opinion - it is useless, and it is not a genuine form of mechanics.

All Matter Tends to Rotation - Leonidas le Cenci Hamilton:
"It does not follow however, that because a theory may be mathematical, it must therefore be mechanical."
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2015
And to say that a theory is not falsifiable when at the same time claiming that it has been falsified is a contradiction. A contradiction in terminis.


Once again, what I have said is not a contradiction. Despite several failed predictions - and yes, there most certainly have been failed predictions (for example the fact that dwarf galaxies have been observed to orbit the Milky Way in a perfect plane, and not randomly as predicted by model simulations) - as well as failed attempts to detected dark matter (in both LUX runs and in a survey of the Milky Way itself) the astrophysics community still considers dark matter a viable, and in fact extremely plausible if not proven, hypothesis. *I* think the model has been falsified. The astrophysics community does not, despite said falsifications, and thus, they *treat* the hypothesis as one that cannot be falsified - *this* is the contradiction.
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
"Contrary to those desires, quantum theory does not describe physical reality.

I have 115 years of science and technology contradicting that.
The DM hypothesis in itself has not been falsified. It still explains galaxy rotation and gravitational lensing. A plausible discussion of the dwarf galaxy problem is found at https://en.wikipe...problem.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
I have 115 years of science and technology contradicting that.


Then take your issue up with the authors of that article? It's a direct quote, written by two PhDs in quantum physics, and it's far from the first time I've seen it. The Copenhagen Interpretation does not have a classical, deterministic, physical interpretation of reality or nature. It's a successful heuristic, and that's all.

The DM hypothesis in itself has not been falsified.


Thank you for sharing your opinion. I've shared mine as well - I think it has been, regardless of the present consensus. Likewise, I'm not discussing the "missing satellite problem" - which happens to be a failed prediction in its own right - I was referring to the discover that observed dwarf galaxies do not orbit their host galaxy in random orbits, as was also predicted by dark matter models, but in fact orbit in a perfect elliptic plane - http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0446
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
A press release of said discovery - taken from my *notes* of failed predictions and "unexpected discoveries": http://www.keckob...rstandin
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2015
QM is not an algorithm. QM is physics. It may be that the QM wave function is not a element of reality, but it _describes_ reality. QM allowed physicists to contract the atomic bomb. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is very real. ALL of its many, many predictions are precisely, to the highest degree of accuracy, borne out by experiment.

A failure you were saying?

The quote is your statement even if you are not the author.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2015
(1) I never said that QM was not a valid, well tested system of mathematics. Nor did I ever say that it cannot be used to produce real world applications. That is in fact, the opposite, of what I said. I'm *not* saying that QM is wrong - I am saying, as many other people (including mainstream PhDs), that it does not describe the physical world or the processes that produce the effects we measure experimentally in a classical, deterministic, physical way. *To me*, someone who thinks that there should be no separation between natural philosophy and physics, that makes it a failure as a theory. It's a personal dissatisfaction, not a statement on its validity. I can't express that any more clearly than I have...

(2) Yes it is my statement - I'm referencing the opinion of other scientists by *directly* sourcing a quote from their article. Again, if you disagree, take it with up them.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2015
I think you're here to argue with me for the simple sake of arguing. You're welcome to keep doing it, it's pretty fun, but nothing that I've said is logically inconsistent or irrational. You're very clearly trying to create contradictions that don't exist...
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
The DM hypothesis in itself has not been falsified.


Thank you for sharing your opinion.

It's not an opinion but a fact.
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
well tested system of mathematics

That is an ill-defined concept.
You test physics, you prove mathematics.
Besides I never said that you said etc. Strawman tactics.
QM ... does not describe the physical world or the processes that produce the effects we measure experimentally in a classical, deterministic, physical way.

We all know that QM is not classical, by definition. What kind of dribble is this?
a failure as a theory

You probably prefer some wrong but theoretically correct theory.
(2) Yes it is my statement - I'm referencing the opinion of other scientists by *directly* sourcing a quote from their article. Again, if you disagree, take it with up them.

Why should I? You make the statement and you are on this blog.
Be responsible.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
You test physics, you prove mathematics.

This idea is ridiculous. Mathematics is a tool to describe observed physical phenomena in more precise language, so that the phenomena may be manipulated to produce precise results. Without a physical process, there is nothing to *prove* mathematically. The mathematics of QM have *no physical description or interpretation* of the mechanical processes that are described by the mathematics. They are a heuristic, not mechanics.

We all know that QM is not classical, by definition. What kind of dribble is this?

If we all know that, then what exactly is your problem with my statement? I don't understand your issue here...

You probably prefer some wrong but theoretically correct theory.

No, I'd like to find an interpretation of the experimental observations that can be described by a rational, physical system of mechanics. I don't think it's impossible, and neither did Bohm or DeBroglie.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
The foundations of QM are unsatisfactory but otherwise QM is quite perfect.
I suspect a more fundamental theory should be possible.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
Be responsible.


How have I been irresponsible by quoting a published article?
mytwocts
4 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
You test physics, you prove mathematics.

This idea is ridiculous.

I just state the nature of mathematics.
We all know that QM is not classical, by definition. What kind of dribble is this?

If we all know that, then what exactly is your problem with my statement?

After calling QM a failure a.o. you make this trivial statement. OK forget it.
You probably prefer some wrong but theoretically correct theory.

No, I'd like to find an interpretation of the experimental observations that can be described by a rational, physical system of mechanics. I don't think it's impossible, and neither did Bohm or DeBroglie.

Me too, but great physicists devoted their lives and did live to get any closer to this goal.
That makes a man cautious. Otherwise, QM fully qualifies as a "a rational, physical system of mechanics".
We may not understand what matter is but thanks to QM we know perfectly what it does.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2015
Be responsible.


How have I been irresponsible by quoting a published article?

Nothing wrong with that, on the contrary.
But it is still your statement, your personal opinion.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2015
The foundations of QM are unsatisfactory but otherwise QM is quite perfect.

I'm sorry, but *this* is a contradiction. You can't call a physical theory perfect in the same sentence where you admit that it has unsatisfactory foundations. It's the *foundation.* That is literally like saying "well, everything about this house was built with perfect structural integrity...except it was build on sand."

If I can ask, exactly what is your issue with what I'm saying? At no point have I disagreed with how accurate the mathematics are, or how well they work in application. My *entire* criticism of QM lies in the same foundations that you've just said are unsatisfactory, and it is a personal opinion. Mathematics =/= mechanics, because the latter *needs* a physical interpretation, which QM lacks. QM does not describe the processes occurring during an experiment in a physical way, it only does it heuristically, which is my issue with it.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
But it is still your statement, your personal opinion.


Of course it's my opinion - I agree with authors. Why would I reference them directly if I disagreed with the view detailed in the article?

I think this entire problem is that my opinion happens to disagree with yours, and the present consensus. You just seem genuinely irritated that I'm not madly in love with QM. I find it counterintuitive, non-mechanical, and I am opposed directly to its inability to express what is happening in physical terms.
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
I am just pointing out some flaws in your thinking.
"opposed directly to its inability to express what is happening in physical terms"
What does that even mean, in practice ? Lets suppose an atomic bomb drops on you,
how do you express your direct opposition ?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
When you ignore the whole of philosophy and focus on only a tiny sub-set of thought you are bound to run into trouble at some point
-But when the thing you use for thinking is cracked you cannot trust anything it produces.

Poor lurrkrrrr lives in a glass bubble with a mirrored interior surface.

Scare yourself lrrrkrrrrrrr. Try to imagine that. Know thyself.

Of course you think that the god of absolutely everything can love you personally. You are the only thing you see.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2015
its inability to express what is happening in physical terms

It means that the mathematics that describe what happens in say, the double slit experiment, does not have a rational or logically consistent interpretation of the *physical* mechanism at work. In one situation, the object moving through the slit may be treated as a particle, and in the other, it may be treated as a wave - *mathematically* this works, but *physically* it produces a contradictions because a single object cannot be a particle (a individual, concrete objects) and a wave (a type of motion, usually within a medium) at the same time.

Even though he successfully describe the phenomena of gravitation mathematically, Newton proposed no physical theory of gravitation because he had no hypothesis about the mechanism at work. It doesn't mean his math couldn't be used in application. What I'm saying is no different. Mathematics alone is not physics, or natural philosophy. It's just math.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
Lets suppose an atomic bomb drops on you, how do you express your direct opposition ?


I wouldn't - I'm dead, because an atom bomb just dropped on my head...Could you rephrase your question a bit more clearly?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
<$0.02 worth,

Seriously, have you ever sat inside a college physics classroom? What's the highest level math course you've ever taken?

By the way, I'm still waiting on that simple calculation you claim to have for calculating the density of DM. Remember the claim that you made for that? We'll just check out that calculation & see how quickly I can "falsify" that. I already caught IMP9 trying to fudge that calculation, you'll just be the next one I catch.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
Lets suppose an atomic bomb drops on you, how do you express your direct opposition ?


I wouldn't - I'm dead, because an atom bomb just dropped on my head...Could you rephrase your question a bit more clearly?

Exactly. That is the reality that QM describes so precisely.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
<$0.02 worth,

Seriously, have you ever sat inside a college physics classroom? What's the highest level math course you've ever taken?

By the way, I'm still waiting on that simple calculation you claim to have for calculating the density of DM. Remember the claim that you made for that? We'll just check out that calculation & see how quickly I can "falsify" that. I already caught IMP9 trying to fudge that calculation, you'll just be the next one I catch.

The simple calculation must be done by you, didn't you figure. It is you who claims that the DM hypothesis implies that there should be 4 extra solar masses at the sun, or 80 % should be missing, or whatever you claim. Make the claim and prove it by a simple calculation. How simple? Multiply a density with a volume ! Even you might pull it off. Or can you only do Differential Equations ?
mytwocts
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2015

It means that the mathematics that describe what happens in say, the double slit experiment, does not have a rational or logically consistent interpretation of the *physical* mechanism at work.

Your double slit experiment is an abstraction of a physical situation. That's why it look so mathematical. The slit system actually is made of a physical material has a finite thickness, complex valued refractive index. The passing electron interacts with the electrons in the material. You may abstract that into a double slit. Physics.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
The foundations of QM are unsatisfactory but otherwise QM is quite perfect.

I'm sorry, but *this* is a contradiction.

The catch is in the word "OTHERWISE". You may have missed that.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
Your double slit experiment is an abstraction of a physical situation.


An experiment in the physical world, conducted in a laboratory with physical experiments, is an *abstraction* of a physical situation? What are you even talking about? Sending a photon or an electron through a double-slit is not an abstraction, it's a physical process that can be described with mathematics. Despite that fact, it cannot be described in an intuitive, logically consistent *physical* description because the mathematics of QM imply that it is both a particle and wave, *which is a contradiction.*

Please stop rambling at me and then crying "physics."
mytwocts
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2015
you'll just be the next one I catch.

It's all in your head boy.
Your imagination is just out of control and your statements are unchecked.
Are you by any chance wearing an inverted funnel on your head ?
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
The catch is in the word "OTHERWISE". You may have missed that.


No, I didn't miss it. The *difference* is that I'm not waving away the consideration of those unsatisfactory foundational issues in my criticism of QM, and *you* are. They are, in *my opinion*, very big issues that make QM a failure as a *physical theory*, not a system of mathematics.

Is anyone else other than mytwocts confused about what I'm saying, because I don't think my explanation is lacking in clarity...
mytwocts
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2015
@cp
I am not crying, but calmly writing physics. No need to get all emotional.
By the way, you are mistaken. There is no contradiction in QM.
There may be a contradiction in some interpretation of it.

mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
[I'm not waving away the consideration of those unsatisfactory foundational issues in my criticism of QM, and *you* are.

Am I? Show me a quote from any post.
To call QM "a failure as a physical theory" only comes back at you like a boomerang.
You are not a physicist, that's what it means.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2015
Is anyone else other than mytwocts confused about what I'm saying, because I don't think my explanation is lacking in clarity...


Carlo, write the guy off. He doesn't know a thing about physics. He claims to have simple calculations that solves he entire enigma of DM but won't produce the math which he claims is less complicated than the Differential Equations in Einstein's General Relativity, but you can be sure he's never seen a Differential Equation he could solve. He probably believes in cold fusion as well.

If you notice he couches his remarks such that they are always tainted with double meanings, leading to yet another unfounded narrative.

Everything he posts is worth far less than his sign on handle of two cents suggests. He's simply a practitioner of convoluted reasoning that rational thinking people can never comprehend, exactly in the same mold & mindset as the DM Narrative that some have been trying to foist on the scientific community by it's proponents.
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
He claims to have simple calculations that solves he entire enigma of DM but won't produce the math which he claims is less complicated than the Differential Equations in Einstein's General Relativity, but you can be sure he's never seen a Differential Equation he could solve. He probably believes in cold fusion as well.

You are a fool seeing nothing but the reflection of himself.
hari_it
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2015
It is to be expected as derived in an axiomatic theory called Sankhya in Vedic Science. Space is in an axiomatic perpetual oscillatory state at C=2.965E+8 cps. The radial distance in time is 2.02E+17 secs or 6.4 billion years where density of interactions is 1.

At density 2 or cuberoot of 2 =1.26 the radial time decreases to 5.08 billion years.

At that density gamma ray bursts will occur at ten points on circumference .9 will be counted. Each will be .382C -=1,6 E+8 meters dia.

G Srinivasan

See kapillavastu dot com
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2015
Sub: Cosmic pot energy universe
I have projected 10^9 Light Years under cosmic Pot Energy Universe and 240 Universes [Multi-universe] as part of Cosmos. Research papers were presented at Carnegie Centennial 2003 -3rd Symposium and Baltimore Space Telescope Science Institute-Astrophysical Laboratory-May 2003.
My Studies are based upon Space Cosmology Vedas Interlinks- now 17 books available.
Cosmic Function of the Universe is still not understood by astronomers so far.
see-http://www.scribd...del-2003
http://www.scribd...rse-2003
vidyardhi nanduri [Independent Research-cosmology studies]
nilbud
3 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2015
Carlo some people just aren't cut out for university, you, returners with his "magic sky demons" and a few others would be better off in your own ward. Don't waste someone else's opportunity by clogging up the system with your time wasting carcass.
nilbud
not rated yet Aug 10, 2015
The Universe cannot be very large according to Big Bang model, because the galaxies at the 13 LYrs distance are already these very first ones and the Universe did undergo a rapid expansion just before it. So it cannot be a much larger than the 13 LYrs in radius, or these galaxies observed aren't very fresh ones.The Universe cannot be very large according to Big Bang model, because the galaxies at the 13 LYrs distance are already these very first ones and the Universe did undergo a rapid expansion just before it. So it cannot be a much larger than the 13 LYrs in radius, or these galaxies observed aren't very fresh ones. Of course, the presence of some 5 Lyrs inhomogeneities can be still explained with some inhomogeneity during inflation, but the inflationary model has been invented just for explanation of the seeming lack of these inhomogeneities before fifty years.


Wrong. Fundamentally wrong.
https://www.youtu...2t5zlxQQ
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2015
The catch is in the word "OTHERWISE". You may have missed that.


No, I didn't miss it. The *difference* is that I'm not waving away the consideration of those unsatisfactory foundational issues in my criticism of QM, and *you* are. They are, in *my opinion*, very big issues that make QM a failure as a *physical theory*, not a system of mathematics.

Is anyone else other than mytwocts confused about what I'm saying, because I don't think my explanation is lacking in clarity...


Then effing well publish you sodding "theory" so that we don't have to keep reading the garbage here.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.