Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By mvb
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By tk421

Thread: Challenging Cosmology

  1. #1 Challenging Cosmology 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    The largest structure in the universe has just been discovered, which according to the authors, should not exist according to BB cosmology.

    Largest Structure in Universe Discovered | Space.com

    Largest Structure In Universe, Large Quasar Group, Challenges Cosmological Principle


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The largest structure in the universe has just been discovered, which according to the authors, should not exist according to BB cosmology.
    Could you point out exactly where they say it should not exist "according to BB cosmology"? Or is this just you (mis)interpreting words to support your delusions again?


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Thinker Emeritus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Delaware, USA
    Posts
    195
    What has been discovered is a collection of quasars which is larger than any group of apparently-related objects known. There is talk about the group violating the "Cosmological Principle" that the universe is homogeneous when viewed at a large enough scale. To my mind it would be more rational to say that the discovery indicates that the "large enough scale" is somewhat bigger than we thought it was. None of this has anything to do with whether or not there was a Big Bang, any more than the existence of galaxies indicates that the Big Bang never occurred.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The largest structure in the universe has just been discovered, which according to the authors, challenges the cosmological principle.

    Largest Structure in Universe Discovered | Space.com

    Largest Structure In Universe, Large Quasar Group, Challenges Cosmological Principle
    (my changes in bold)
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The largest structure in the universe has just been discovered, which according to the authors, should not exist according to BB cosmology.
    Could you point out exactly where they say it should not exist "according to BB cosmology"? Or is this just you (mis)interpreting words to support your delusions again?
    "This particular group is so large that it challenges modern cosmological theory, researchers said."
    "Large quasar group stretches 4 billion light-years, so big theory says it shouldn't exist."

    ///////////////////////////////
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The BBT can change itself to accommodate nearly any observation. It's not really subject to falsification. It's just the best explanation for Hubble Expansion and the CMBR, provides a very convenient explanation for the amount of Hydrogen, Helium and a few other elements which are observed in the universe.

    Since it is essentially reverse engineered from those three basic observations, it has no constraints outside of them. No matter what size the universe turns out to be, or no matter what its age turns out to be, the BBT will still be able to accommodate those things. It has no reliable predictive power in that area. It only predicts that Hubble Expansion is real, the CMBR is real, and Hydrogen, Helium and a few other elements exist in a certain abundance.

    We end up with what we started with. It neither builds on, nor reduces those three observations. It just makes sense of them for those of us who want them to make sense.
    forrest noble likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The largest structure in the universe has just been discovered, which according to the authors, should not exist according to BB cosmology.
    Could you point out exactly where they say it should not exist "according to BB cosmology"? Or is this just you (mis)interpreting words to support your delusions again?
    "This particular group is so large that it challenges modern cosmological theory, researchers said."
    "Large quasar group stretches 4 billion light-years, so big theory says it shouldn't exist."

    ///////////////////////////////
    So you were wrong. Again. Thanks for admitting it.

    Anyway, I thought you said you were going to shut up about this after admitting your ignorance of the subject. That promise didn't last long, did it.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Since it is essentially reverse engineered from those three basic observations, it has no constraints outside of them.
    The model is constrained by its equations of motion, which are in its most general form the Einstein field equations, of which the Lambda-CDM model is just one particular solution. You are correct however in saying that there are many other possible cosmological solutions ( Goedel dust, anyone ? ), and the process of selecting which one fits our universe is based on observational parameters ( exactly six of them, to be precise ).
    I would think that this expected though, because if one assumes that there is a "Theory of Everything" with exactly one unique solution ( our universe ), then that would mean that our laws of nature are in some way special or privileged, which I personally don't think is the case. This is a matter of debate though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The largest structure in the universe has just been discovered, which according to the authors, should not exist according to BB cosmology.
    Could you point out exactly where they say it should not exist "according to BB cosmology"? Or is this just you (mis)interpreting words to support your delusions again?
    "This particular group is so large that it challenges modern cosmological theory, researchers said."

    /"Large quasar group stretches 4 billion light-years, so big theory says it shouldn't exist."
    /
    ........Anyway, I thought you said you were going to shut up about this after ........
    That was a different subject and thread. This one is about the new discovery of the largest structure in the universe.
    Last edited by forrest noble; January 12th, 2013 at 02:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    actually einstein's work made it possible for exactly that to be observed oposed to newton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, "although very variable in detail", is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the same kind and density.
    hmmm message too short.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    actually einstein's work made it possible for exactly that to be observed opposed to newton.
    Einstein's work made it possible for what to be observed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    i wouldn't even be surprised if we observed more of these.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    i wouldn't even be surprised if we observed more of these.
    I would be somewhat surprised to see such an equally wide cluster of qausars, but to see other equally large structures of some kind would be less surprising. All such observations and structures would seem to be totally contrary to the Big Bang model and would seem to support much older or infinite universe models that could allow for enough time for such large structures to form.
    Last edited by forrest noble; January 26th, 2013 at 09:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    i don't see how BB would be contrarary to it, bb is just a reference frame to explain the nature of elements. rename it to 'bubba's findings' it would still be the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I don't think the BBT actually puts a time limit on the universe. People keep using the BBT model to predict times for it to have formed, based on applying it to the data at hand. However, the BBT even allows for the rate of expansion to change from time to time for unknown reasons (no reason need be given for the change, at least). So it can allow for the universe to have nearly any age.

    Basically it has a few major fudge factors, which make it immune to comparison against a number of types of specific, known, limits.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    So it can allow for the universe to have nearly any age.
    No, it doesn't. It allows for a universe which is 13.7 billion years old.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't think the BBT actually puts a time limit on the universe. People keep using the BBT model to predict times for it to have formed, based on applying it to the data at hand. However, the BBT even allows for the rate of expansion to change from time to time for unknown reasons (no reason need be given for the change, at least). So it can allow for the universe to have nearly any age.

    Basically it has a few major fudge factors, which make it immune to comparison against a number of types of specific, known, limits.
    The present consensus BB model has an estimated age for the universe that has been calculated to be 13.772 0.059 billion years. This is based upon the presently believed average expansion rate based upon observations, which is called the "Hubble Constant." Although this expansion rate was theorized/ observed before the dark energy hypothesis, the average expansion rate is thought to include dark energy, and still thought to be the same as the Hubble Constant. If the new James Webb is successfully placed and if it finds that the most distant universe (and oldest galaxies) appears to have galaxies within it that appear to be as large and as old as the Milky Way is now, this Hubble age will seemingly have to be revised, and ad hoc hypothesis will be needed again. This is what I expect to see about the year 2022 or sooner.

    They could do this by playing with the dark energy hypothesis lengthening the time of decelerated expansion; They could play with the Inflation hypothesis also increasing the hypothetical time that the Inflation era lasted. They could play with the time after Inflation but before the beginning of the present expansion era, and I would expect if they wanted they could come up with many other hypothesis to extend the age of the universe to allow for observations that suggest a much older universe but still be within the changed BB model.

    If observations require such ad hoc hypothesis to be made, however, I expect many theorists would cry foul. Those theorists already proposing older BB models would first receive consideration. Those proposing ad hoc hypothesis will also receive attention. And those proposing alternative cosmological models of an older universe, or infinite universe model might again receive mainstream attention and consideration.
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 9th, 2013 at 02:46 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't think the BBT actually puts a time limit on the universe. People keep using the BBT model to predict times for it to have formed, based on applying it to the data at hand. However, the BBT even allows for the rate of expansion to change from time to time for unknown reasons (no reason need be given for the change, at least). So it can allow for the universe to have nearly any age.

    Basically it has a few major fudge factors, which make it immune to comparison against a number of types of specific, known, limits.
    Right. Theories that don't explain observations are to be preferred over those that do.

    Got it.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Completeness of understanding should never be a strong reason to prefer a theory. The Goddidit theory would explain anything you want it to explain, yet we don't prefer it over other theories that may do a poorer job of giving us a complete picture.

    Maybe it's better just to say "I don't know" sometimes. The "I don't know" theory doesn't contradict observation any more than the "It was all due to the creation event" theory.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    My favourite explanation for the previously largest known structures was: An early imperfection in the big bang amplified by inflation.
    I don't know how scientific that answer was, but it kept me happy then, and still works for me now with these larger structures.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    My favourite explanation for the previously largest known structures was: An early imperfection in the big bang amplified by inflation.
    I don't know how scientific that answer was, but it kept me happy then, and still works for me now with these larger structures.
    That is pretty much the current view. The seeds of large scale structure were quantum fluctuations stretched to cosmological scales during the inflationary epoch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    My favourite explanation for the previously largest known structures was: An early imperfection in the big bang amplified by inflation.
    I don't know how scientific that answer was, but it kept me happy then, and still works for me now with these larger structures.
    You know how scientific that answer was and how scientific that anwer would be for this observation Now that I have heard that answer it might also help me to keep smiling for weeks too. If you can find that old article, or some similar explanation the supposedly explains this observation, could you post it here? Or whatever explanation you might find online, would you post them here? I'll also keep my eyes open for ad hoc explanations, or mainstream explanations other than the "BB imperfection" explanation you just mentioned -- and place them here.
    Last edited by forrest noble; January 28th, 2013 at 03:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    To butt in here, isn't the problem with the quasar superstructure it's shape and not its size - in that its one dimension is orders of magnitude greater than any of the others and this may suggest some sort of isotropy breaking?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    To butt in here, isn't the problem with the quasar superstructure it's shape and not its size - in that its one dimension is orders of magnitude greater than any of the others and this may suggest some sort of isotropy breaking?
    I think it's primarily the concentration of quasars at similar redshfts and location. Yes, explaining isotropy breaking such as this is one of the main problems concerning the standard model.
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 8th, 2013 at 02:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    12
    After reading the blog I was amazed after reading the size of its which is 4 Billion light years long wonderful,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverclay View Post
    After reading the blog I was amazed after reading the size of its which is 4 Billion light years long wonderful,
    yes, wonderful if you believe the standard model is wrong, but seemingly difficult to explain if you believe the Big Bang model is valid. Yes, 4 billion light years is an awesome scale for any asserted single structure of the universe
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. PG in cosmology !
    By nivesh in forum Education
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 30th, 2012, 07:16 AM
  2. Challenging Taliban to sword duals
    By kojax in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 9th, 2011, 12:59 PM
  3. Challenging Problem
    By dougieB in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: November 1st, 2009, 10:03 PM
  4. Cosmology
    By Jim Colyer in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 31st, 2006, 04:34 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •