Could cold spot in the sky be a bruise from a collision with a parallel universe?

May 31, 2017 by Ivan Baldry, The Conversation
A change in the density of galaxies can’t explain a cold spot in the sky. NASA and the European Space Agency. Credit: Noodle snacks

Scientists have long tried to explain the origin of a mysterious, large and anomalously cold region of the sky. In 2015, they came close to figuring it out as a study showed it to be a "supervoid" in which the density of galaxies is much lower than it is in the rest of the universe. However, other studies haven't managed to replicate the result.

Now new research led by Durham University, submitted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, suggests the supervoid theory doesn't hold up. Intriguingly, that leaves open a pretty wild possibility – the cold spot might be the evidence of a collision with a parallel universe. But before you get too excited, let's look at how likely that would actually be.

The cold spot can be seen in maps of the "" (CMB), which is the radiation left over from the birth of the universe. The CMB is like a photograph of what the universe looked like when it was 380,000 years old and had a temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin. What we find is that it is very smooth with temperature deviations of less than one part in 10,000. These deviations can be explained pretty well by our models of how the hot universe evolved up to an age of 380,000 years.

However the cold spot is harder to work out. It is an area of the sky about five degrees across that is colder by one part in 18,000. This is readily expected for some areas covering about one degree – but not five. The CMB should look much smoother on such large scales.

The power of galaxy data

So what caused it? There are two main possibilities. One is that it could be caused by a supervoid that the light has travelled through. But it could also be a genuine cold region from the early universe. The authors of the new research tried to find out by comparing new data on galaxies around the cold spot with data from a different region of the sky. The was obtained by the Anglo-Australian Telescope, the other by the GAMA survey.

The GAMA survey, and other surveys like it, take the "spectra" of thousands of galaxies. Spectra are images of light captured from a galaxy and spread out according to its wavelengths. This provides a pattern of lines emitted by the different elements in the galaxy. The further away the galaxy is, the more the expansion of the universe shifts these lines to appear at longer wavelengths than they would appear on Earth. The size of this so-called "redshift" therefore gives the distance to the galaxy. Spectra coupled with positions on the sky can give us 3-D maps of galaxy distributions.

But the researchers concluded that there simply isn't a large enough void of galaxies to explain the cold spot – there was nothing too special about the galaxy distribution in front of the cold spot compared to elsewhere.

Could cold spot in the sky be a bruise from a collision with a parallel universe?
CMB as observed by Planck. Credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration, CC BY-SA

So if the cold spot is not caused by a supervoid, it must be that there was a genuinely large cold region that the CMB light came from. But what could that be? One of the more exotic explanations is that there was a collision between universes in a very early phase.

Controversial interpretation

The idea that we live in a "multiverse" made up of an infinite number of has long been considered a possibility. But physicists still disagree about whether it could represent a physical reality or whether it's just a mathematical quirk. It is a consequence of important theories like , string theory and inflation.

Quantum mechanics oddly states that any particle can exist in "superposition" – which means it can be in many different states simultaneously (such as locations). This sounds bizarre but it has been observed in laboratories. For example, electrons can travel through two slits at the same time – when we are not watching. But the minute we observe each slit to catch this behaviour, the particle chooses just one. That is why, in the famous "Shroedinger's cat" thought experiment, an animal can be alive and dead at the same time.

But how can we live with such strange implications? One way to interpret it is to choose to accept that all possibilities are true, but that they exist in different universes.

So, if there is mathematical backing for the existence of parallel universes, is it so crazy to think that the cold spot is an imprint of a colliding universe? Actually, it is extremely unlikely.

There is no particular reason why we should just now be seeing the imprint of a colliding universe. From what we know about how the universe formed so far, it seems likely that it is much larger than what we can observe. So even if there are parallel universes and we had collided with one of them – unlikely in itself – the chances that we'd be able to see it in the part of the that we happen to be able to observe on the sky are staggeringly small.

The paper also notes that a cold region of this size could occur by chance within our standard model of cosmology – with a 1%-2% likelihood. While that does make it unlikely, too, it is based on a model that has been well tested so we cannot rule it out just yet. Another potential explanation is in the natural fluctuations in mass density which give rise to the CMB temperature fluctuations. We know these exist on all scales but they tend to get smaller toward large scales, which means they may not be able to create a cold region as big as the cold spot. But this may simply mean that we have to rethink how such fluctuations are created.

It seems that the cold spot in the sky will continue to be a mystery for some time. Although many of the explanations out there seem unlikely, we don't necessarily have to dismiss them as pure fantasy. And even if it takes time to find out, we should still revel in how far cosmology has come in the last 20 years. There's now a detailed theory explaining, for the most part, the glorious temperature maps of the CMB and the cosmic web of which span across billions of light years.

Explore further: New survey hints at exotic origin for the Cold Spot

Related Stories

New survey hints at exotic origin for the Cold Spot

April 25, 2017

A supervoid is unlikely to explain a 'Cold Spot' in the cosmic microwave background, according to the results of a new survey, leaving room for exotic explanations like a collision between universes. The researchers, led ...

Enormous hole in the universe may not be the only one

April 22, 2015

Astronomers have found evidence of a giant void that could be the largest known structure in the universe. The "supervoid" solves a controversial cosmic puzzle: it explains the origin of a large and anomalously cold region ...

Is dark matter 'fuzzy'?

April 28, 2017

Astronomers have used data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to study the properties of dark matter, the mysterious, invisible substance that makes up a majority of matter in the universe. The study, which involves 13 ...

Recommended for you

Study details the history of Saturn's small inner moons

May 22, 2018

The small inner moons of Saturn look like giant ravioli and spaetzle. Their spectacular shape has been revealed by the Cassini spacecraft. For the first time, researchers of the University of Bern show how these moons were ...

Two bright high-redshift quasars discovered

May 21, 2018

Astronomers have detected two new bright quasars at a redshift of about 5.0. The newly found quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) are among the brightest high-redshift quasars known to date. The finding was presented May 9 in a paper ...

First interstellar immigrant discovered in the solar system

May 21, 2018

A new study has discovered the first known permanent immigrant to our Solar System. The asteroid, currently nestling in Jupiter's orbit, is the first known asteroid to have been captured from another star system. The work ...

45 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

physman
4.4 / 5 (7) May 31, 2017
Any electric universe people here to explain how some guy 50 years ago showed this in the lab with plasma?
Chris_Reeve
May 31, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) May 31, 2017
but I would like to point out how all of these anomalous observations for the Big Bang immediately invoke parallel universe explanations.

Erm...how about: no? They do no such thing.

Parallel universes are a possibility - not a necessity. They are something that isn't forbidden by the math of the standard model. However just because the math doesn't forbid something doesn't automatically mean it has to exist.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) May 31, 2017
The pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo is alive and well in the standard model.
Molecular hydrogen
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2017
Could this area of the universe be the only area of space where galaxies have not yet reached ? Bit like looking down a funnel ..
Steelwolf
1.6 / 5 (7) May 31, 2017
Could well be the fractal equivalent of a Rogue Wave in an ocean setting, only with the absolute density of electromagnetic radiation in space and possibly several ungraded varieties of plasma to dust (and maybe even small bodies such as gravel and up) being the medium for the superwave.

There appears to be a nearby area that looks warmer than most areas as well, so it is possible that these are different phases of the same superwave with one the warm, higher energy region offsetting the colder, lower energy region.

Fractal iterations on the grand scale, yet we see fractals go down to nanometers and up to megaparsecs and billions of lightyears, so it is not too much of a stretch to envision expansion and compression on such huge scales as that, one area with higher energy density, one lower,in a wave-form shape in 3 dimensions (4 once time; in billions of years, is considered.) Liken it to a sonic reverberation of massive energy scale yet ultra-low note.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) May 31, 2017
fractal equivalent of a Rogue Wave

What does that even mean?

ungraded varieties of plasma to dust

and that

Ya know: Throwing sciency sounding words together doesn't automatically make them mean something
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (6) May 31, 2017
As with any sort of science, especially those bridging different studies: you can lead a man to data but you cannot make him think.

I toss out ideas in basic, solid science in a few different fields, knowing the links well, and ask a reasonable question. Maybe it Will make someone think, obviously and obnoxiously not you, howeverA-I, which is strange, I would have thought ye more amenable to reasonable questions...or do you just see my name and try to find some way to shoot me down along with the crowd of other people that you do this to, you and the bot-voting disgusti-crowd who have no interest in the science, just the trolling?

Come on, I am interested in actual science, and while my personal view of cosmology is a mix of several, I am not blinded by Anybody else's vaunted cosmological sacred cows and I do not go bashing other's views, so I would much rather get the same respect. Yes, I speak up when folks start bashing myself or others, as now, but I do not instigate.
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (5) May 31, 2017
Rogue Waves are the recently well documented super waves that have been found in our oceans. They happen due to crossing patterns of waves superimposing on each other to create a super large wave set with super lows as well.

The analogy works in this case due to the difference in absolute electromagnetic energy densities per volume between the warmer areas and the colder areas, with the warmer obviously being denser both because of more electromagnetic radiation and also retained heat in gasses and dusts being let off as the infrared which is seen (red shifted to radio as it is) and the fact that there are two areas that look very similar to a slice of such wave heights/densities as are found in the superwave studies in Oceanography. Troll me as ye will, science keeps advancing, leaving those who refuse to advance their thinking behind.
Steelwolf
2.7 / 5 (7) May 31, 2017
Hat, the fractal equivalent being the differences in density spanning what appears to be a wave several billions of lightyears across as if it were a sound wave, with a high density region (likely) followed by the low density region as a sound wave moving across the cosmos, just like a sound wave moving across a room, a region of compression (and micro heating) and then rarification following (with it's attendant cooling phase to leave a zero net gain) as appears with the brighter red-yellow area next to the blue area of the cold spot. To my practiced eye this matches wave shapes to a large degree. Note, I make qualifications I do not KNOW, I ask, and see if what I am seeing, from my view and what I know and have seen proven, works as I think it does. (You may have missed the -next- followup post earlier.)
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) May 31, 2017
I toss out ideas in basic, solid science in a few different fields, knowing the links well, and ask a reasonable question.

I don't think 'solid science' means what you think it means.

Hat, the fractal equivalent being the differences in density spanning what appears to be a wave several billions of lightyears across as if it were a sound wave, with a high density region (likely) followed by the low density region as a sound wave moving across the cosmos,

'Fractal' is a measure of self similarity over different scales. Not what you describe at all. Ya know, in science it's pretty important to use words correctly. Otherwise you just grooble far mik sandrifalal brdoosl. Capisce?
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) May 31, 2017
I don't think 'solid science' means what you think it means.

Coming from a guy who believes relying on extra dimensions to explain failures in theory is "solid science" because maths doesn't preclude it. That's rich!
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (5) May 31, 2017
Anti, the self-similarity is, indeed there, even if YOU do not happen to see it. Gasses compres and rarify quite nicely as sound waves in this manner, and the reinforcing effect as the same in water, provides a double amplitude wave with higher high, lower low, I used the ocean as an analogy of fractal equivalence and the sound wave as a fractal equivalent.

Do understand that there Are some farther out on the flats with larger IQ numbers than you on that Bell chart of intelligences, just like there are a whole lot to the other side from you, do not lump us All in that catagory.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) May 31, 2017
Oceans and gasses are in no way fractal. Look up the word. Please. You're completely missing what it stands for.
(And yes, I can back this up, because I actually used fractal measures in my PhD thesis)


Do understand that there Are some farther out on the flats with larger IQ numbers than you on that Bell chart of intelligences

There are people more intelligent than me. But you sure as hell ain't one of them. You just post pseudo-scientese gibberish.

(Oh, BTW It's 'Bell curve' - not chart)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2017
@antialias, @Steelwolf.

Strictly in the interests of your mutual understandings:

Re FRACTAL: this concept/term has many contextual/evolutionary meanings/applications depending on what is being highlighted (and/or whether its mathematical/physical aspects). Pls, read this: https://en.wikipe...able=yes

Excerpt:
...to extend the concept of theoretical fractional dimensions to geometric patterns in nature


Re ROGUE WAVE: this may apply to any system containing variously scaled/directed waves; for example:

- 'beat' phenomena in musical contexts;

- 'rogue wave' phenomena in ocean wave context; AND ALSO

- COSMIC 'energy-matter-space-waves' contexts. Pls read this link: https://en.wikipe...ic_sound

Excerpt:
These counteracting forces of gravity and pressure created oscillations, analogous to sound waves created in air by pressure differences.
Cheers. :)
doogsnova
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2017
Is the author referring to the DAL universe?
Steelwolf
1.7 / 5 (6) May 31, 2017
Thank You RC, absolutely correct. And Anti, while the chart is compounded using the Bell Curve, the finished product, plotted out is a Bell Chart, both in common and scientific usage. And unless your IQ is above the age adjusted 150 point please do not bother penis measuring, if I bothered with the documentation I could have my doctorate as well, however the stack of letters means little to me, the actual scientific studies and work that I did the knowledge I deduced, experimented with and studied intensely and then re-introduced to others sharing my crafts do matter to me, much more than a mere title, I actually made a set of lasting contributions that will live long after me.
idjyit
not rated yet May 31, 2017
Who's to say it isn't the remnant of a merged universe ?
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2017
f I bothered with the documentation I could have my doctorate as well,

Funnily only people who never try say that. If you actually tried you'd quickly find out that you actually can't. It's like RC who continually claims to do this and know that but never actually backs it up with anything. It's Dunning-Kruger. Not impressed.

work that I did the knowledge I deduced, experimented with and studied intensely and then re-introduced to others

Given the garbled mess of pseudo-science gibberish you post I highly doubt this.

And unless your IQ is above the age adjusted 150 point

No it's not. (That would be a preposterous as that score is in the 99.95+ percentile)...at the last test I took I was about 12 points lower than that...And yes: I do put myself to tests of all kinds regularly to actually check what I can and cannot do - so as to not fall for Dunning-Kruger. The main incentive for me to shoot of a PhD was actually to test if I could.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2017
Ya know what sorta gets my goat?

I can see where a used-car salesman can get by with fast-talk that makes no sense when their customers don't know the difference between a clutch and a spare tire. The used-car salesman knows their customers are stupid and will abuse this. Fine.

But you (and RC) are trying the used-car slaesman routine on a site where some people actually have a brain and know what the words mean. And that's so incredibly moronic that it's beggars belief.

And *then* you (both) double down claiming that you coulda, shoulda, woulda if only you wanna. The pure gall of this and the absolute Dunning-Krugerism is just beyond out there.
Dingbone
Jun 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2017
Anti, I regularly test at 143 and above, have had hits at 148, so this is why I say unless you are tracking at 150 or better to not bother. Stating that you are at the 138 level is respectable, but is high enough to make you rather fallible in that tradeoff of intelligence/insanity, something I recognized decades ago.

The field I was working in was with reproducing the technology of the ancient toolmakers and swordmakers, as that is what I had studied, and was able to bring modern engineering and wave mechanics with attention to nodal points and their placements within certain weapons types, in the building of historically accurate, usable pieces that museums and historical researchers could use for Their experimentation, and to help them figure their results. I also worked with block prints to be able to bring certain specalized tools to light, create them and see how they were used historically. I could well have a doctorate, but my ego is not so big as that.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2017
Anti, I regularly test at 143 and above, have had hits at 148

By what you post here? No way, no how. There's no chance in hell someone who has a high enough IQ would not look up basic words before using them to construct an argument.

No. I'm calling "total BS" on this statement.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
Anti, since you are ONLY a Troll, no matter your piled higher and deeper status, and I have nothing that I really need to prove to you. You are stuck in your little walls of other people's cosmology and are unable to Think for yourself, this is obvious. I would imagine that your thesis was accomplished by cut and paste work, as strongly as you cling to 'mainstream science' with all of it's intentional fallacies included.

The fact that you do not accept others as being more intelligent than you, even if their ideas do not match your own, shows that you are merely an intellectual bigot who is more interested in saving their own little spot by the fire rather than advancing scientific principles.

I tend to feel sorry for folks like you who cannot see beyond their own superiority/inferiority complex and have to put down others to feel ok about themselves.

If you are talking about my earlier fractal idea, you need to do some study on the modern uses and definitions of fractals.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
What I find abundantly funny, Anti, is that my idea is actually encapsulated in this story as it is, read the second to last paragraph to the article above. The whole point is that I can see the waveform inherent in the statement:

"Another potential explanation is in the natural fluctuations in mass density which give rise to the CMB temperature fluctuations..."

All I have done is remarked on the similarity between what is seen in the cosmic background and what has been amply studied in superwaves elsewhere. And no, I did not rely on that print of the background radiation, I used the full round versions found in WorldWide Telescope Project, and worked from there.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2017
I would imagine that your thesis was accomplished by cut and paste work,

A thesis is a scientific work. As such it should include something novel. And yes, I did create a novel algorithm in my thesis. Cut and paste doesn't get you a thesis (and if it does it opens you up for later accusations of plagiarisms which can get you your degree revoked. Some politicians figured this out the hard way in recent years.)

The fact that you do not accept others as being more intelligent than you

Au contraire. I have no problem acknowledging others as more intelligent than me. I'm pretty sure DaSchneib, FineStructureConstant, RNP, yyz, IMP-9 and possibly a couple others have me beat in that department on these comment sections alone. But I'm sure as sure can be you're not in that group. (because, for some odd reason, all the people actually being knowledgeable on stuff seem to agree that you're full of BS. Why do you think that is, hm? Because they're jealous? Riiiight)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2017
All I have done is remarked on the similarity between what is seen in the cosmic background and what has been amply studied in superwaves elsewhere.

No. You started throwing around totally inappropriate words like 'fractal' in a way to try and elicit an "Oh golly gee - look at me using scientific terms"-way...foolishly thinking that (on here of all places!) no one would know what these terms actually mean.

Not the first time you tried this stunt and certainly not the last. But in all the years you've been on here: Has that actually worked? Have you gotten any cred? Has anyone run with your 'ideas'? No.

To quote someone else for a change:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
Having already seen several of my predictions come to fruition, several ideas for inventions I tossed around with friends come to pass (with them commenting that I should have the patents), and lots of theories I felt did not have enough background support have fallen by the wayside.

I am what is known as a synthecist and am able to make broad deductions based on observation and attendant facts, including the maths involved. Merely because you do not fully understand the several hypothesis that form my personal theories of cosmology is unimportant; most people still do not undestand what Einstein was trying to get across and he was widely ridiculed until fairly late in life.

The individuals you name spend more time trolling and name calling in the protection of their own dogmatic views instead of actually talking about and assimilating the new studies. Also bot-like voting based on the name of the poster, not the content, and NEVER apologizing when found to be in error.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
Anti, you have already had your nose rubbed in the fractal definition portion by RC, ya might actually reconsider before you go and dig yourself into too deep of a hole, you are making yourself look very much less like a PhD and more like a Community College washout due to inflexible thinking.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2017
Anti, you have already had your nose rubbed in the fractal definition portion by RC

Really? You support yourself by citing RC?

OK. I'm done. Game. Set. Match.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
I was pointing out to Anti that just having paper saying you are PhD means little also. Many of my ideas are actually well supported by research that has gone on in the past, is ongoing now, and is not a 'wild idea' theory, in fact, parts of it are mentioned in the above article, very plainly in the second to last paragraph there it states in paraphrase what I tried to explain in a longer form. Apparently you do not accept widely known accepted studies showing their impacts and Why I have these different views.

I would go look at this discussion, and MichaelMo's comments, even on the first page gives at least 6 major reasons that mostly negate all models of 'dark matter' and puts it into the proper light:
https://www.physi....911560/

Sure, folks will argue, but he posts indisputable facts and shows where the previous fudge factors have created the idea that something is there when it is only the fudge factor instead.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
Game, set, match playing against yourself and watch you fall on your face, yes? Look at :

https://en.wikipe...able=yes

Before you go self-congratulating. It will help ya get Der Shneib off Der Floor
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2017
*Sigh*..here's something to help you learn:

Saying that theories are wrong is not a big accomplishment. Everyone knows that ALL theories we have are wrong too some degree and will eventually be surpassed by better ones (if they weren't then one of them would be a grand unified theory. But no theory we have is that).
That something this basic even has to be explained to anyone is beyond belief. You not knowing this really puts you down a couple of notches on the IQ ladder (which you didn't start too high on .to begin with)

The trick is: To show you're smart you have to replace the theories with something *better* (not just different. Better). With the math to back it up. Testable. Vague "I think it's like water-ripples" isn't going to cut anything. Even trying to pass something on that level off as a contribution is so utterly moronic it would be worth writing a PhD thesis on your state of mind for.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
Anti, the basic repeating fractal structure from sound wave, to visible waves either in water or smoke columns, to cloud formations with the so called gravity wave formations, the turbulence of the wind creating a constant tone in going over certain land, water or temperature/pressure shears creating regular formations in the clouds that look just like waves on water.

The same can be seen in Jovian pictures, where there appear to be regular ripples in the clouds, it appears in the solar wind, it has been documented in interstellar dust clouds, in nebulae of many sorts as well as ripples in the gas of galactic clusters, such as was recently documented in the Perseus Cluster at this site.

To exist at larger scales, as the article states, is of a low percentile probability, however, it is still a Possibility, and space is very vast and plasma filled, so a compression wave several billions of lightyears long should not be a stretch, considering reverberations expected from the BB.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
What I am talking about is not even considered "EU" Cosmology, this is standard fare that just happens to scale up as well as down. I really do not understand the automatic hostility, which is why I put doubts on the IQ. I do not jest about my IQ, and normally do not bruit it about, if you notice, over the many years I have been on here I have not done so before. I just get oh so weary of folks who think they know it all, when I fully understand their hypothesis and general theories and have found that they do not match the models as they are given, there is always 'adjustments', and as has been found, the way those adjustments were determined have been multiple times to be faulty.

The basic effect that is overlooked most is the combination of gravity, mass, with electromagnetism and the conductive effect of plasma of all temperatures, which inherently carries a differentiated charge and the ability of it to be an effective charge carrier over the vast intergalactic distances.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
Anti, I do apologize, I am not wanting to be running a flame war here, it is unneeded. I am really at the IQ stated, at 143, high test was a 148, worst test, on an anti-depressant, sleep med and pain med hangover from a combination of having lost my father to a very fast cancer and dealing with effects of a broken neck and severe nerve damage, I scored a 135. That was the low, and came back up to the 143 level again.

I am disabled, now sedentary and medicated, yet that does not stop the intelligence from working on things, I just have more free time for it. I am free and able to study a very wide variety of things, and have resourses beyond this site, I just prefer the science news here for a morning coffee homepage rather than the MSM News sites which I read later in the day and post in too.

So, rather than fight, creative argument is OK, as long as you can look at and acknowledge the info and studies. I do not ask you to believe in em, that is up to you. I will do the same.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2017
@anti.
like RC who continually claims to do this and know that but never actually backs it up with anything.
You're IN DENIAL, mate! Why keep doing this to yourself? Are you this insensible to the recorded reality, or just a raging masochist? I posted info re the topic you and Steelwolf were discussing, but you just ignore it and carry on insulting/denying! What gives?
A thesis is a scientific work. As such it should include something novel. And yes, I did create a novel algorithm...
Didn't you read/understand the crucial effective differentiation that 'maths' DOES NOT EQUAL 'physics', @anti? Your 'mathematician's ego/bias' is 'compromising' your 'intelligence'.
I have no problem acknowledging others as more intelligent than me. I'm pretty sure DaSchneib, FineStructureConstant, RNP, yyz, IMP-9
You and they have a BIG problem admitting it where I am concerned: RECALL, YOU/THEY fell hook-line-&-sinker for Bicep2 CRAP (and BB/Inflation etc), NOT ME, @anti. :)
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2017
I favor a non-homogenous inflationary epoch in which --all things being equal-- areas of lower matter density evolved, at all scales, with areas of correspondingly higher matter density.

Nothing magical or fantastical need be invoked to explain this --or any of the other-- "coldspots"

While they're at it, why is there no special case needed to explain areas of higher or much higher observed density and heat?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2017
@Caliban, the authors of the paper basically agree with you. To quote them from the abstract,
...we conclude that the Cold Spot may have a primordial origin rather than being due to line-of-sight effects.
Elmo_McGillicutty
not rated yet Jun 02, 2017
Maybe that cool, less dense area is where the expansion began.....i.e........the center.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017

Nothing magical or fantastical need be invoked to explain this --or any of the other-- "coldspots"

Sure. I guess the issue with the cold spot is more on the lines of: Since there are several interesting theories about multiverses and whatnot the cold spot is an ideal area to put them to the test.

Maybe that cool, less dense area is where the expansion began.....i.e........the center.

Expansion doesn't have a center. That's why it's called expansion (not explosion)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2017
While they're at it, why is there no special case needed to explain areas of higher or much higher observed density and heat?
@Caliban, I ignored this question and you deserve a 5 for asking it. My bad. Luckily I gave you 5 anyway. ;)

The answer is, over the sky, we see a root-mean-square relation surrounding cold or hot areas that is around 18 mK. This cold spot area averages 70 mK colder, making it unusual, and at the center 140 mK colder, making it nearly an order of magnitude unusual, and an order of magnitude is enough to require some sort of explanation. We have tried some explanations and eliminated all of them; nobody has a better one. What is left is this crazy universe bruising or an order of magnitude excursion in the primordial flux, which doesn't have a good explanation in quantum mechanics. So there might be some interesting new physics lurking in the Cold Spot. That's why it's interesting.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2017
@Steelwolf

Nobody gives a shit what your IQ is.
Not to mention that the writing of most people who claim high IQs is execrable.

I think people who actually have high IQs (as opposed to those who claim them) don't need to make any claims. You can see it from what they write.

If you got it show it. If you can't show it and have to claim it, you ain't got it.
Dingbone
Jun 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yep
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2017
Citing RealityCheck does not enhance your argument one iota. Which I am sure your know what an iota is.

Disregarding what he is saying does make you a fucktard worthy of being included on the list of others who can never admit to being incorrect in their assumptions even when it is pointed out to them.
Just the idea of a parallel universe is laughable. I now can understand why you dupes can believe in the Big Bang fantasy. It's because your intellects have expanded beyond common sense.

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.