Could it be another Universe?

[bobw]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm assuming that it's the size and scope of the non-uniformity that is "different".&nbsp; ... Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Could be.&nbsp; This cosmology stuff has always been over my head.&nbsp; For example...<br /><br /><em>0809.3733.pdf<br />We show there that the concordance&nbsp; CDM model cannot account for this motion at many standard deviations. Instead, it is possible that this motion extends all the way to the current cosmological horizon and may originate from the tilt across the observable Universe from far away pre-inflationary inhomogeneities (Kashlinsky et al 1994; Turner 1991).<br /><br />0809.3734.pdf<br />Our findings imply that the Universe has a surprisingly coherent bulk motion out to at least C 300h 1Mpc and with a fairly high amplitude of />&nbsp;&nbsp; 600-1000 km/sec, necessary to produce the measured amplitude of the dipole signal of C2-3&micro;K. Such a motion is difficult to account for by gravitational instability within the framework of the standard concordance&nbsp; CDM cosmology but could be explained by the gravitational pull of pre-inflationary remnants located well outside the present-day horizon.</em><br /><br />What does "the tilt across the universe" mean?<br /><br />In 3733 when he says pre-inflationary inhomogeneities, is that the same as in 3734 where he says pre-inflationary remnants?&nbsp; The latter sounds like un-inflated stuff.&nbsp; That would be something new for sure!<br /><br />I remember reading an interview in Astronomy or Sci-Am where Wilkinson said that if the multiverse exists and one of the other universes is near us WMAP (MAP at the time) might be able to detect its effects on CMB polarization or something.&nbsp; So discoveries of stuff beyond the visible horizon was clearly on their minds.&nbsp; WMAP is working really good!&nbsp; WMAP2 is likely to make maps of beyond the horizon IMHO, this stuff might turn out to be routine after all.</p><p>P.S. Thanks to&nbsp; <strong>derekmcd</strong> for posting those links&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What does "the tilt across the universe" mean? <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>If my interpretation is correct (that's a big "if") is they're referring to pre-inflationary density perterbations being non-uniform outside our observable universe.&nbsp; Inflation doesn't place constraints on the size of the Universe.&nbsp; Measurements of our "observable" universe imply that the scalar fild represented by inflation was invariant and hence the homongenous nature of our observable universe.&nbsp; It may be the scalar field outside the observable universe was, in indeed, variable and hence the Universe out side our observable universe is not homongenous.&nbsp;&nbsp; In other words, regions beyonds our observable universe may very well be much more dense than our own (hence tilted) and these density are cuasing the bulk flow. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[bobw]

So it isn't the clumpiness per se that doesn't fit with CDM cosmology, but the idea of non-uniform inflation implied by the magnitude of the clumpiness.&nbsp; Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p>So, based on my reading. Einstein predicted dark energy based on his cosmological constant. Corrrect? ( of course he wavered on that point, but in the end is being proved correct. ) </p><p>So, where does dark flow fit into to Einstein's equations. I think that the correct answer is that it is separate. Yes?&nbsp; </p>

 

[baulten]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, based on my reading. Einstein predicted dark energy based on his cosmological constant. Corrrect? ( of course he wavered on that point, but in the end is being proved correct. ) So, where does dark flow fit into to Einstein's equations. I think that the correct answer is that it is separate. Yes?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>Einstein claimed there was a cosmological constant because of his desire for a perfectly uniform and unchanging universe.&nbsp; However, he was obviously wrong, and in the end, did wave that claim.&nbsp; It was never really based on actual observation.</p><p>The newly discovered dark flow does not fit into his equations in any way, shape, or form. </p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The newly discovered dark flow does not fit into his equations in any way, shape, or form. <br /> Posted by baulten</DIV></p><p>Oh ye of little faith.&nbsp; You mean not "yet".&nbsp; Give them a couple of months and someone will modify the properties of inflation to come up with "dark flows" in some new and improved "Lamda-CDM-Flow" theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; They'll hail it's "prediction" of "dark flows" to be it's greatest attribute too. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[job1207]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Einstein claimed there was a cosmological constant because of his desire for a perfectly uniform and unchanging universe.&nbsp; However, he was obviously wrong, and in the end, did wave that claim.&nbsp; It was never really based on actual observation.The newly discovered dark flow does not fit into his equations in any way, shape, or form. <br /> Posted by baulten</DIV></p><p>My understanding is that the Cosmological Constant now fits, because it showed that the universe was expanding. Also, if I am not mistaken, NONE of Einstein's equations were based on observation. </p><p>btw, the source is Michio Kaku on the Discovery Channel program about this topic.&nbsp; </p>

 

[skyfolly]

<p>it is interesting that the things we are seeing from earth maybe actually millions of light years away from us, so it means the objects we are seeing are actually millions of years ago and perhaps billions of years. So the objects we are seing maybe disappeared, dead in&nbsp;another word.</p><p>&nbsp;I would like to think that there is another universe or maybe more than one out there. we just can't see it. i guess some lights are blocked or taken by super&nbsp;dark energy, black holes maybe.</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My understanding is that the Cosmological Constant now fits, because it showed that the universe was expanding. Also, if I am not mistaken, NONE of Einstein's equations were based on observation. btw, the source is Michio Kaku on the Discovery Channel program about this topic.&nbsp; <br />Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>The answer to your question depends on what you mean by "based on observation", and what you mean by Einstein's equations.</p><p>Einstein was an intuitive researcher who strongly believed in an essential order to the laws of physics.&nbsp; His personal inspiration in developing relativity was not strongly rooted in experiment, but more so in the beauty of the laws themselves.&nbsp; He developed his laws based on a few simple principles, which were and are consistent with observation.&nbsp; For instance the observation that a person in a falling elevator senses no gravitational effects (until impact) is the basis for the "equivalence principle" which the heart of general relativity.&nbsp; In that sense general relativity is based on the most simple of observations.&nbsp; Special relativity is somewhat simpler and can be derived from just two basic observations: 1) Light propagates at a fixed velocity in all inertial reference frames and 2) the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.</p><p>While Einstein was not an experimentalist, his theories have been tested many times by very good experimentalists and have been found to produce astoundingly accurate predictions in all but the most extreme conditions -- conditions in which quantum effects should be very important.</p><p>It is also sometimes not understood that general relativity is a theory of gravity and not a theory of cosmology.&nbsp; It is central to cosmology simply because the large-scale behavior of the universe is dominated by the gravitational force, and because general relativity provides the framework to understand the effects of gravity.&nbsp; It is also important becaue the nature of general relativity provides and explanation in terms of the structure of space-time itself, and the complete space-time manifold IS the universe.</p><p>General relativity only provides a framework for cosmology.&nbsp;&nbsp;It can be formulated with a cosmological constant or without one (i.e. a cosmological constant of 0).&nbsp; It does a good job of predicting the behavior of the universe based on observed conditions or assumed initial conditions.&nbsp; For instance it can be used to show that, based on the observed conditions now, that the universe began some time ago in an extremely compressed state -- the theory actually shows a singularity which may be simply an indication of the breakdown of the theory under circumstances in which quantum mechanics becomes important.&nbsp; It cannot explain the mechanism behaind the initial expansion of the universe -- that requires assumed initial conditions or something like inflation that is oustide of general relativity.&nbsp; But general relativity itself, the theory of gravitation based on the geometric properties of space-time as determined by the Einstein field equations has been extensively tested experimentally and found to be consistent with all observations thus far.</p><p>The cosmological constant was initially used by Einstein not to explain an expanding universe, but rather to provide for a static (non-expanding universe) by delicately balancing the contractive effect of gravity wiith a ounter-effect provided by the cosmological constant.&nbsp; When Hubble's work showed the universe to be expanding Einstein dropped the cosmological constant.&nbsp; More recent observations (roughtly in the last 10 years) indicate that not only is the universe expanding, but that the rate of expansion is increasing.&nbsp; The acceleration of the expansion has resulted in the revival of the notion of the cosmological constant, or equivalently the postulation of "dark energy", to provide a repulsive force in the Einstein field equations that describe gravitation.&nbsp; Whether or not this is an accurate reflaction of nature remains an open question, but many astronomers support the idea.</p><p>Einstein also developed theoretical explanations for the photoelectric effect (which is the work for which he received the Nobel Prize) and for Brownian motion, both experimentally observed effects.&nbsp; That work was directly based on experiment and served to promote the development of quantum mechanics (photoelectric effect) and to provide a link between observations and the atomic theory of matter (Brownian motion).&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The real papers are a bit more informative than the press article. The real breakthrough is the new method of measuring the flow using statistical analysis applied over many samples. Apparently this flow has been measured but not very accurately for over 30 years. Now this new method of measurement yields results that do not conform the Lambda CDM theory. So they conjecture that the motion therefore must be caused by something outside the observable universe which is the same thing as saying that the motion is caused by something outside of the theory. If their approach to the measurements proves to be reliable then we should be able to add these motions to the red shift data and come up with all kinds of new theories. <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>I think you are correct.&nbsp; The thrust of the papers seems to be a very delicate statistical treatment of the raw data.</p><p>While this appears very interesting and certainly is good work, it strikes me as premature to become overly excited about the global&nbsp; cosmoligical issues -- although that is the more titillating aspect and is the thrust of the article for the populace at large.&nbsp; Before too much is made of this there needs to be a lot more work done to confirm the interpretation of the data.</p><p>I am personally leery of arguments that apply sophisticated statistical techniques and appy assumptions that are somewhere between difficulat and impossible to confirm.&nbsp; Extrraction of signals from noise using techniques like the Weiner filter requires that one have rather good knowledge of the statistical distributions associated with the noise and be looking for a precisely known signal amid that noise.&nbsp; I think that a good deal more review work will be required to verify that the analysis is accurate and that some additional work to provide confirmation of the broader conclusions with independent analystical methods is in order.</p><p>This strikes me as very good research work, but work that is being over "hyped" in the popular press.&nbsp; There are too many wild cards in the mix, dark energy, dark matter, now "dark flwo", details of inflatinary expansion (if such is&nbsp; valid) plus a boat load of statistical assumptions.&nbsp; This tells me that we have a long way to go to understand the expansion of the universe, the initial drivers, what is going on in the present epoch, etc.&nbsp; Trying to discern the global behavior of a universe of immense size from observations taken from a single point in space is a rather daunting task.&nbsp; This is an intriguing puzzle, but we ought not start thinking that we know more than we do and make extrapolations from our limited knowledge that may lead us astray.&nbsp; We need to understand the pieces of the puzzle better before we try to put the entire puzzle together.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wh<font color="#003366">en I saw this my first thought was that it seems like the <font color="#3366ff">Great Attractor</font>, but on a much larger scale. Until we have more data we should be cautious with our superlatives, but it does seem very interesting!Inflationary theory has already shown how the whole universe might be many magnitudes larger than the our observable part of it, so that idea is no surprise. In fact, this new observation might confirm that concept. We had assumed (based on our observations that the universe we can see is homogeneous and isotropic at the large scales), that the whole universe would be more of the same. But perhaps this is not the case, eh?The dark flow adds a new aspect to our cosmology. It does not mean that we have to throw all the old cosmology out of the window, but some parts will surely be affected.These are interesting times indeed!&nbsp; </font><br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">here is the picture from your link.&nbsp;&nbsp; Where in this picture is this dark flow supposed to be? (photolink)</font></p><p><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/2MASS_LSS_chart-NEW_Nasa.jpg/800px-2MASS_LSS_chart-NEW_Nasa.jpg" border="0" alt="Image:2MASS LSS chart-NEW Nasa.jpg" width="800" height="405" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kid]

<p>Hey every one ,&nbsp; i have really enjoyed reading all the posts ya'll are real&nbsp;group of&nbsp;geniuses. As im so not genius there's a question in my mind which is bugging me since i started my research on space my question is that is earth the only planet having life? i would like you all to share your comments about this so that i can share my comment as well. i hope i will get reply.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p>

 

[R1]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#000080">Hey every one ,&nbsp; i have really enjoyed reading all the posts ya'll are real&nbsp;group of&nbsp;geniuses. As im so not genius there's a question in my mind which is bugging me since i started my research on space my question is that is earth the only planet having life? i would like you all to share your comments about this so that i can share my comment as well. i hope i will get reply.</font> <br />Posted by kid</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">I think, in general, life does exist in many other solar systems.&nbsp; Life has not been ruled out yet on Mars or some moons in our system yet.&nbsp; (This is probably a topic discussed to a greater extent in the Seti Forum, 3 doors up from this one.)</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>here is the picture from your link.&nbsp;&nbsp; Where in this picture is this dark flow supposed to be? (photolink) <br /> Posted by john1r</DIV></p><p>From the original article posted in the OP:</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/2/314f8443-35c9-4d6c-82fb-bf925ce3a7d6.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[R1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the original article posted in the OP: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p><font size="2">yes thank you speedfreek, I think what I wish is for the maps to include it now.&nbsp; I remember your Atlas link </font><br />http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/superc.html</p><p><font size="2">now I wish I knew where this Bullet Cluster is, except the atlas goes from 'within 1 billion lt.yrs' to the full 'within 14 billion&nbsp;lt.yrs', maybe one can be made somewhere in between.&nbsp; As I understand it it is around 3 billion ltyrs away, and extends about 6 billion ltyrs.</font></p><p><font size="2">Does it extend about 6 billion ltyrs in size? or in distance from us? I think what I am also trying to determine is the age of its nearest light vs&nbsp;its farpoint. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

<p><font size="2">I will have to read some more on this.&nbsp; Evidently the Bullet cluster is the one where the dark matter had separated from matter</font></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster</p><p><font size="2">I was asking because I think they mentioned it in the dark flow article.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Meric]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you are correct.&nbsp; The thrust of the papers seems to be a very delicate statistical treatment of the raw data.While this appears very interesting and certainly is good work, it strikes me as premature to become overly excited about the global&nbsp; cosmoligical issues -- although that is the more titillating aspect and is the thrust of the article for the populace at large.&nbsp; Before too much is made of this there needs to be a lot more work done to confirm the interpretation of the data.I am personally leery of arguments that apply sophisticated statistical techniques and appy assumptions that are somewhere between difficulat and impossible to confirm.&nbsp; Extrraction of signals from noise using techniques like the Weiner filter requires that one have rather good knowledge of the statistical distributions associated with the noise and be looking for a precisely known signal amid that noise.&nbsp; I think that a good deal more review work will be required to verify that the analysis is accurate and that some additional work to provide confirmation of the broader conclusions with independent analystical methods is in order.This strikes me as very good research work, but work that is being over "hyped" in the popular press.&nbsp; There are too many wild cards in the mix, dark energy, dark matter, now "dark flwo", details of inflatinary expansion (if such is&nbsp; valid) plus a boat load of statistical assumptions.&nbsp; This tells me that we have a long way to go to understand the expansion of the universe, the initial drivers, what is going on in the present epoch, etc.&nbsp; Trying to discern the global behavior of a universe of immense size from observations taken from a single point in space is a rather daunting task.&nbsp; This is an intriguing puzzle, but we ought not start thinking that we know more than we do and make extrapolations from our limited knowledge that may lead us astray.&nbsp; We need to understand the pieces of the puzzle better before we try to put the entire puzzle together. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Great post DrRocket, as most are.</font><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#993300"><font size="2"><font color="#000000"> </font><em><font color="#000000">Those who never make mistakes, are always led by those who do.</font></em></font></font></p> </div>

 

[R1]

<p><font size="2">I was wrong.&nbsp; Evidently galactic gas is what was separated from the galaxies, not dark matter.</font></p><p><font size="2">Evidently Dark matter does not even interact with itself ? </font></p><p><font size="2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRtGUCLjQ3w&feature=related</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was wrong.&nbsp; Evidently galactic gas is what was separated from the galaxies, not dark matter.Evidently Dark matter does not even interact with itself ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRtGUCLjQ3w&feature=related <br />Posted by john1r</DIV><br /><font size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="2">Well I am still so intrigued by the dark flow.&nbsp; Are bullet cluster look-alikes common throughout the universe?&nbsp; I am aware that galaxy mergers are not uncommon, so&nbsp;did all other mergers have an equal chance of being the one studied (as it pertains to its gas-dark matter separation)?</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;It just seems strange to study the bullet cluster and its dark matter amidst the new potential dark flow. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well I am still so intrigued by the dark flow.&nbsp; Are bullet cluster look-alikes common throughout the universe?&nbsp; I am aware that galaxy mergers are not uncommon, so&nbsp;did all other mergers have an equal chance of being the one studied (as it pertains to its gas-dark matter separation)?&nbsp;It just seems strange to study the bullet cluster and its dark matter amidst the new potential dark flow. &nbsp; <br />Posted by john1r</DIV><br /><br />{bump} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

It is quite possible that there are other universes. Purhaps the "Big Bang" was either much more massive then originally thought. Could it be possible that several "universes" were born from the "Big Bang"? Or could there have been more then one "Big Bang", each one creating it's own universe. I guess anything is possible. But these massive clusters of matter (Dark flow) are a true puzzle. If there IS something massive enough to be attracting these objects, how massive are we talking? It must be more massive then several galaxies at least. One thought I had was maybe these are remnense of an initial shockwave of matter left over from the "Big Bang". But the unique speed I don't think can be explained as of yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">It is interesting to know the current work and speculations of the science experts working on this apparent discovery.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">The last article I found was from November '08 National Geographic News</font></p><p><font size="2">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081105-dark-flow.html</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Not much, but a little more has been revealed on the whole "Dark Flow" issue:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/701/1/L29

We present absolute proper motions in Kapteyn Selected Area (SA) 103. This field is located 7° west of the center of the Virgo Stellar Stream (VSS), and has a well-defined main sequence representing the stream. In SA 103, we identify one RR Lyrae star as a member of the VSS, according to its metallicity, radial velocity, and distance. VSS candidate turnoff and subgiant stars have proper motions consistent with that of the RR Lyrae star. The three-dimensional velocity data imply an orbit with a pericenter of ~11 kpc and an apocenter of ~90 kpc. Thus, the VSS comprises tidal debris found near the pericenter of a highly destructive orbit. Examining the six globular clusters at distances larger than 50 kpc from the Galactic center, and the proposed orbit of the VSS, we find one tentative association, NGC 2419. We speculate that NGC 2419 is possibly the nucleus of a disrupted system of which the VSS is a part.

What I take from this is that NGC 2419 is the attractor of this "flow". However if it is, how can something generate that much gravity? Or am I reading into this wrong. Please point out otherwise.