Massive radio survey reveals our universe's structure at the largest scales

[Admin]

New observations from the MeerKAT radio survey suggest our estimates of the cosmic dipole effect are actually in line with the large scale structure of the universe.

Massive radio survey reveals our universe's structure at the largest scales : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I am not understanding why the number of "radio sources" should be higher in one direction and lower in the opposite direction due to Earth's motion "through space".

I would think that the number of sources should be the same in all directions, but the wavelengths of similar types of sources would be shifted by the same amount in opposite directions due to the relative speed differences.

Can somebody please explain why the number of sources changes? Is it just that the peak sensitivity of the detector is not broad enough to detect the shifted frequencies through the shifts?

 

[pennyturtle]

I find it curious that to my eye the resultant image of the movement looks so much like the yin-yang symbol. The ESA's GAIA telescope team provided an image of the 3D relative velocities within the Milky Way. May well be just an artifact of the human ability to see patterns that make sense of random shapes, like seeing faces in the clouds. Still, I do find it interesting that across immense scales, the similar form, looking like the interaction of electrical dipoles, appears to repeat. I appreciate that mentioning electrical phenomena on cosmic scales gets shut down pretty quickly, but you now what they say about things that look like a duck and sound like a duck... Below are some of the GAIA composite images. The second one down is the 3D relative velocities I mentioned.

 

[billslugg]

The center anisotropy in the second image shows the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy. The outer, larger, anisotropy is from our galaxy's motion through the universe, the velocity being relative to the CMBR.

 

[Classical Motion]

Our solar system has two, maybe more, accelerations on it. It has the rotational acceleration like the other members of the MW. But our MW also has an acceleration and a velocity. Like our system does.

Which is faster, the rotational velocity inside the MW or the whole MW velocity? And who knows, the MW might have a pitch.

The only thing we are allowed to measure is our local pitch. We have no way to determine the final velocity of our pitch. We’re not sure how far the pitches stack.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The CMBR does seem to provide a reference for velocity that would seem to be consistent across the entire universe.

At least if the CMBR is really what we think it is and the universe is really as uniform as we theorize it to be.

 

[Classical Motion]

I have a hard time using the term uniform, with those huge galactic webs. Appears kinda stringy to me. But aren’t most of those structures, radio structures? Or are they confirmed with light? And x-ray?

Maybe they mean uniform webs.

 

[Catastrophe]

I have a hard time using the term uniform, with those huge galactic webs. Appears kinda stringy to me. But aren’t most of those structures, radio structures? Or are they confirmed with light? And x-ray?

Maybe they mean uniform webs.

uniform adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of uniform adjective in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

This is another good example of "the map is not the territory".
"The word is not the reality". Sometimes disguising "convenient" assumptions.

not varying; the same in all parts and at all times

. . . . . . . . . unless, of course, we want to assume it to prove something else?

One might, perhaps, call this a convenient 'fudge'?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

The Big Bang theory is based on several assumptions, including:

• The cosmological principle: The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale, meaning that it looks the same in every direction and has the same observational evidence available from any location.

Oh yes. "On a large scale". But let us not forget this assumption.

Then, all we know is completely the opposite.

Ergo, all we experience is insignificant, meaningless.

So we seem to have a paradox. Science is some local philosophy or we accept the assumption that the Universe is uniform and not as we perceive it.

So we are back to relativity (in general).
All we experience is probably irrelevant to the Universe at large.
But our science is based on what we observe. All else is philosophy.

Are our scientific observations just local freaks, or is the Universe uniform?
And on what scale is uniform not uniform? And why?

Does this make science subjective, which is not what it supposed to be.

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Trying to be more specific than philosophical:

The observation is that the universe does not appear to be uniform at any level when observed in radio frequencies - showing a strong difference in the number of detectable sources with direction.

But, the article states that this is somehow expected and consistent with a universe that is assumed to have uniform density at very large scales.

My question is how is this apparent inconsistency explained to show that it really is consistent.

The article states that the observation and theory are consistent, even though they appear to not be consistent. So, the article owes us an explanation.

Or maybe I should say it owes us some proof that a credible explanation actually exists. Unsupported assertions are viewed with skepticism, if not outright suspicion.

 

[Catastrophe]

Trying to be more specific than philosophical:

The observation is that the universe does not appear to be uniform at any level when observed in radio frequencies - showing a strong difference in the number of detectable sources with direction.

But, the article states that this is somehow expected and consistent with a universe that is assumed to have uniform density at very large scales.

My question is how is this apparent inconsistency explained to show that it really is consistent.

The article states that the observation and theory are consistent, even though they appear to not be consistent. So, the article owes us an explanation.

Or maybe I should say it owes us some proof that a credible explanation actually exists. Unsupported assertions are viewed with skepticism, if not outright suspicion.

Then it seems that we are in agreement?

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Cat, I am not disagreeing with anything you posted. But, I am not sure that I understand all of what you meant.

I agree that the standard assumption about the universe, on a large enough scale, being symmetrical and isotropic from all vantage points is definitely an assumption.

And, I understand that assumption is pretty much vital to the current cosmological models and existing solutions to Einstein's field equations. So there is substantial bias against any challenge to that assumption.

That is why I am asking for an explanation about how the authors of this paper and this article can say that the observed distribution of radio sources from our perspective in the galaxy can be so non-uniform with direction and still be consistent with that assumption.

The claim of consistency is not supported by what was provided.

 

[Catastrophe]

I cannot see that I disagreed with any of that (#12).

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

All that I think I can add, is that I think that the "universe" may be cyclic, having a nexus in place of a singularity. This may not need any change in subsequent development.

As I have suggested elsewhere, an "external" (to assumed dimensions) observer solves the problem of "expanding into what?

Cat

Page 3 - Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I am resisting hopping into the rabbit hole about what the universe "expands into".

However, regarding the possibility for it to be cyclic, I will note that the current BBT and that recent article about additional "early dark energy" provide only an example of what can be done with a theory that is free to turn mysterious forces on and off as needed to match observations and imagination.

Without being any more extreme, it is easy enough to postulate that there is a form of "dark energy" that is cyclic instead of on/off. It probably doesn't even need to be able to go + and - to produce a cyclic universe, but there is no reason to prohibit that from the imaginary solutions.

If the universe periodically goes through a big enough "crunch" to compress all of the existing atoms into quark/lepton soup or something similarly subatomic, that should also solve the entropy problem, putting us back on the path that the BBT uses in the later parts of its hypothesized "inflation".

But, I am not arguing for more dark energy types to be used as free parameters. I am only arguing that the current BBT is just one set of ideas that can be conjured up under the same set of rules that are being applied to it.

I think there are even much different possibilities that are related more to how we might be misperceiving some aspects of the universe due to being stuck at one place for only a short bit of time to make observations.

My mind is open, but I do throw the trash out of it from time to time. What I look for is new insights.

 

[Classical Motion]

My mind is not open. That would be philosophical. I start with a very restricted mind. No chaos, randomness or probability is permitted. There are only two physical entities, charge and the fields around it and the fields emitted from it. Space is not an entity and has no properties.

Time, length, dimension all come from charge. e. And are constant like e.

That’s the rules. Pillars of physical discernment.

Very limited. Some questions can NOT be answered. Some can. Future discoveries/answers will be disappointing. Star Trek is not the future.

So, we have philosophy. Only thinking thought can satisfy those questions. Hollywood science.

My solutions are singular and they have to fit the pillars to be a solution.

My solutions are also restricted with another pillar. They only concern non living matter and on living systems. Life has choice. Choice breeds chaos, randomness and probability.

Life and the living are out of bounds. Life is singular and only confuses the cosmos. And me.

My solutions have to fit this iris. And the more I use this pillar iris the stronger the iris becomes.

Some say it’s the meds. Others call it philosophy.

I call it non philosophy and where’s my meds.

 

[Catastrophe]

U.C.

Cat, I am not disagreeing with anything you posted. But, I am not sure that I understand all of what you meant.

I really would like to help clear this up.

Can you pinpoint some area I referenced, or some statement I made which helps me get a handle on the subject matter? Some post #?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Trying to be more specific than philosophical:

The observation is that the universe does not appear to be uniform at any level when observed in radio frequencies - showing a strong difference in the number of detectable sources with direction.

But, the article states that this is somehow expected and consistent with a universe that is assumed to have uniform density at very large scales.

My question is how is this apparent inconsistency explained to show that it really is consistent.

The article states that the observation and theory are consistent, even though they appear to not be consistent. So, the article owes us an explanation.

Or maybe I should say it owes us some proof that a credible explanation actually exists. Unsupported assertions are viewed with skepticism, if not outright suspicion.

My question is how is this apparent inconsistency explained to show that it really is consistent.

It isn't (imho).

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, I am not disagreeing with anything you posted. But, I am not sure that I understand all of what you meant.

I agree that the standard assumption about the universe, on a large enough scale, being symmetrical and isotropic from all vantage points is definitely an assumption.

And, I understand that assumption is pretty much vital to the current cosmological models and existing solutions to Einstein's field equations. So there is substantial bias against any challenge to that assumption.

That is why I am asking for an explanation about how the authors of this paper and this article can say that the observed distribution of radio sources from our perspective in the galaxy can be so non-uniform with direction and still be consistent with that assumption.

The claim of consistency is not supported by what was provided.

I agree.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I am resisting hopping into the rabbit hole about what the universe "expands into".

I appreciate that "my" analogy is only an analogy.

Nevertheless, I had, before, seen suggestions about "other dimensions" and considered these "a bit of a cop out". Mere unsupported verbiage.

After working through the analogy, I (rightly or wrongly) found support in the idea, to the level of feeling conditional confidence.

Have I asked you if you have read Korzybski? "Science and Sanity is over 900 pages, but his shortened version "Selections from Science and Sanity" is considerably shorter.

Selections from Science and Sanity - Google Suche

The latter was not available when I read the full version, but it (the original) literally changed my life in a very positive way. I no longer rely on superficial words, but try to absorb the full meaning behind them in a way which is difficult to explain. The map is not the territory. The words are not the reality.

Cat

Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics
5th Edition with Preface by Robert P. Pula

"Selections from Science and Sanity represents Alfred Korzybski's authorized abridgement of his magnum opus, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. This second edition, published in response to the recent Korzybski revival, adds new introductory material and a revised index, providing an accessible introduction to Korzybski's arguments concerning the need for a non-Aristotelian approach to knowledge, thought, perception, and language, to coincide with our non-Newtonian physics and non-Euclidean geometries, to Korzybski's practical philosophy, applied psychology, pragmatics of human communication, and educational program. Selections from Science and Sanity serves as an excellent introduction to general semantics as a system intended to aid the individual's adjustment to reality, enhance intellectual and creative activities, and alleviate the many social ills that have plagued humanity throughout our history."

 

[Catastrophe]

UC. Please start at #17.

 

[AboveAndBeyond]

Uhm, the universe doesn't expand into anything, it just expands.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Cat, I am not ignoring you, but I really have no idea what you are asking me to do.

I did take a look at this https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Science-and-Sanity.pdf , and noted that it starts with 100 pages of introductions and prefaces and biographical information, beginning with the 5th edition and working through all editions down to the first, before I can see the actual writings. And, those seem to be very verbose and full or references to other things.

So, basically, I am not impressed. If it takes the original author 900 pages to make his points, I think he will have an extremely small audience and few if any converts to whatever his actual thought process is.

That doesn't mean that I disagree with him - it means I just don't have the time for him. And after reading the first few pages of his quarrels with spoken language and the thought processes of others, with only general solutions, I am not seeing anything that looks helpful to me. I don't disagree with the criticisms that I did read, but they were not exactly revelations to me, anyway.

So, moving on, what is it that you want me to agree with, explain better or take back, that is relevant to this particular article?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Uhm, the universe doesn't expand into anything, it just expands.

Easy to say, but doesn't really convey any useful meaning.

If the universe is finite, but it includes "everything", including all "space", that creates an enigma for our conceptualization.

You can talk about "balloons" expanding, but that actually does involve a higher dimension than the surface of the balloon for us to understand it. You can talk about "time" expanding as we experience it "passing", but we also seem to see the other 3 spatial dimensions expanding as well.

It really doesn't matter whether you think that you understand it somehow - what counts is only whether you can explain your concept in a way that others can comprehend.

And, simply implying that anyone who does not understand your concept is not as smart as you are is not impressive. As Billslugg likes to say, "If you can't explain it to the bartender, you really don't understand it."

 

[Gibsense]

That is why I am asking for an explanation about how the authors of this paper and this article can say that the observed distribution of radio sources from our perspective in the galaxy can be so non-uniform with direction and still be consistent with that assumption.

Maybe I am wrong but I read it to mean that the act of speeding meant we could see more galaxies ahead of us and not that there actually were more in front than behind. If we turned around and faced the other way at speed then we would see the same effect - more ahead than behind.

Then the problem under discussion of 'uniformity' disappears. Why there seems to be more ahead is a different issue (?)
Maybe it is just an issue of apparent density which results from the 'compression' ahead from the speed effecting wavelength