Is anyone out there comparing large-scale Universe patterns?

There is a hypothesis, that whole Universe could be generated by some
simple rule set up as a program.

Some data about the very early Universe is already available from the
astronomical observations, and I think these distant patterns of the
Universe (maybe something like the data about CMB [Cosmic Microwave
Radiation]) could be technically comparable to the patterns produced by
simple rules (such as cellular automaton).

I would like to know if there is existing any research group or
research program, aiming to do the kind of comparisons [comparing early
universe with systematically generated patterns].

Sorry for disturbing, I am asking just because I could not find that
kind of research for long time, and this looks like a very interesting
thing to do.

--
Mindaugas Indriunas (Inyuki/$B$_$s$G$#(B/$BL@ml(B)
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Inyuki

Inyuki wrote:
There is a hypothesis, that whole Universe could be generated by some
simple rule set up as a program.

Some data about the very early Universe is already available from the
astronomical observations, and I think these distant patterns of the
Universe (maybe something like the data about CMB [Cosmic Microwave
Radiation]) could be technically comparable to the patterns produced by
simple rules (such as cellular automaton).

I would like to know if there is existing any research group or
research program, aiming to do the kind of comparisons [comparing early
universe with systematically generated patterns].

Sorry for disturbing, I am asking just because I could not find that
kind of research for long time, and this looks like a very interesting
thing to do.

Howdy.

The universe does not have a pattern, therefore one cannot compare it
to any other pattern. The universe is very nearly homogeneous, to such
an extent that up until recently it was not possible to measure the
tiny bit that is not homogeneous via the COBE.

[ Mod.note: spr trimmed from Newsgroups header, as per poster's
intention. Please pay attention when replying to cross posted
messages. -ik ]

Inyuki wrote:

Sorry for disturbing, I am asking just because I could not find that
kind of research for long time, and this looks like a very interesting
thing to do.

I have tried twice before to respond to your post and the incorrect
response that followed it. However, my posts inexplicably get sent to
sci.physics.research where any dissent from the Substandard Paradigm is
quicky annihilated.

Anyway, here is a third try.

There are two major patterns in the large-scale distribution of matter
in the observable universe (note small u).

1. There is a remarkable fractal network of filaments, sheets and voids
that dominates the matter distribution. This has been demonstrated
definitively.

2. There is also a strong hierarchical clustering pattern: galaxies are
clustered into galactic groups, which are clustered into galactic
clusters, which are clustered into superclusters, ...?

The large-scale matter distribution is only *statistically*
"homogeneous" when you ignore all the structure of 1 and 2, and average
things out.

Put succinctly: Nature is not homogeneous like a bottle of milk, unless
you look at it through thick, blurry "Coke-bottle" glasses.

If you are interested in an explanation for these patterns, go to
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on "Galactic Scale
Self-Similarity". Then scroll down to section II. for a 2-minute
"Preview".

All questions/comments gladly received.

Robert L. Oldershaw

"R" == Rob writes:

R Inyuki wrote:
Sorry for disturbing, I am asking just because I could not find
that kind of research for long time, and this looks like a very
interesting thing to do.

I'm not sure what is meant by "comparing large-scale Universe
patterns." People are certainly interested in, and engaged in,
understanding the large-scale structure of the Universe and how it arose.

[...]
R Anyway, here is a third try.

With some corrections.

R There are two major patterns in the large-scale distribution of
R matter in the observable universe (note small u).

I'm not sure of the distinction being drawn here. There's one
observable Universe, just as there is one Local Group, one Galaxy, and
one Sun. Also, the portion of the Universe that is observable may be
a small fraction of its total volume. There is a concept called a
multiverse, which postulates that there may be an infinite number of
universes, but there'd still be only one observable Universe.

R 1. There is a remarkable fractal network of filaments, sheets and
R voids that dominates the matter distribution. This has been
R demonstrated definitively.

There is a network of filaments, sheets, and voids of galaxies. It's
even got a name, the "cosmic web." I think there's little agreement
that the distribution is fractal, in part because the spatial dynamic
range probed is so limited.

R 2. There is also a strong hierarchical clustering pattern: galaxies
R are clustered into galactic groups, which are clustered into
R galactic clusters, which are clustered into superclusters, ...?

Galaxies do cluster, into groups and clusters. Note though that
groups of galaxies need not be contained within a larger cluster. For
instance, the Local Group of galaxies is not contained within a larger
cluster of galaxies, at least not as clusters of galaxies are
defined. It is contained within the Local Supercluster, which is
centered on the Virgo Cluster of galaxies, and contains numerous other
groups of galaxies.


R The large-scale matter distribution is only *statistically*
R "homogeneous" when you ignore all the structure of 1 and 2, and
R average things out.

R Put succinctly: Nature is not homogeneous like a bottle of milk,
R unless you look at it through thick, blurry "Coke-bottle" glasses.

To use your milk analogy, even milk isn't homogeneous if you look at
it on small scales. This is a strawman argument. On large scales,
one chunk of the Universe is essentially indistinguishable from any
other chunk. On what scale is this relevant? The value I carry
around in my head is 50 Mpc. That is, regions about 50 Mpc in size
are indistinguishable from one another.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote:

R Put succinctly: Nature is not homogeneous like a bottle of milk,
R unless you look at it through thick, blurry "Coke-bottle" glasses.

To use your milk analogy, even milk isn't homogeneous if you look at
it on small scales. This is a strawman argument. On large scales,
one chunk of the Universe is essentially indistinguishable from any
other chunk. On what scale is this relevant? The value I carry
around in my head is 50 Mpc. That is, regions about 50 Mpc in size
are indistinguishable from one another.


We are in reasonable agreement on most things mentioned so far, but
there are two things that require further discussion.

1. In a hierarchical model such as the Discrete Fractal Paradigm or
Eternal Inflation, the degree of "homogeneity" is highly dependent on
the scale you are looking at. This important point seems to be
overlooked in many discussions of the large-scale distribution of
matter in the observable universe. One never finds complete
homogeneity, smoothness and isotropy, but rather the actual
inhomogeneity, discreteness and anisotropy varies from low to high
depending on where you are in the hierarchy.

2. We agree that on scales of 50-100 Mpc there is approximate,
statistical "homogeneity" if you ignore smaller scale structure.
However, we are not justified in assuming that the distribution becomes
increasingly "homogeneous" as the scale increases. If we go up to
scales of 10,000 Mpc, we could very well be right back to the situation
where the distribution once again is highly inhomogeneous, discrete and
anisotropic.

So let's be careful of this misconception that the "Universe" is highly
"homogeneous". That is inaccurate and misleading. Let's be careful to
say that the observable universe is statistically uniform when the
scales 50-500 Mpc are specified. And let's say that we are much less
sure about what we will find when we have good observational evidence
at scales 1000 Mpc.

Robert L. Oldershaw

"R" == Rob writes:

R Joseph Lazio wrote:

R Put succinctly: Nature is not homogeneous like a bottle of milk,
R unless you look at it through thick, blurry "Coke-bottle" glasses.

To use your milk analogy, even milk isn't homogeneous if you look
at it on small scales. This is a strawman argument. On large
scales, one chunk of the Universe is essentially indistinguishable
from any other chunk. On what scale is this relevant? The value I
carry around in my head is 50 Mpc. That is, regions about 50 Mpc
in size are indistinguishable from one another.

R We are in reasonable agreement on most things mentioned so far, but
R there are two things that require further discussion.
[...]
R 2. We agree that on scales of 50-100 Mpc there is approximate,
R statistical "homogeneity" if you ignore smaller scale structure.
R However, we are not justified in assuming that the distribution
R becomes increasingly "homogeneous" as the scale increases. If we
R go up to scales of 10,000 Mpc, we could very well be right back to
R the situation where the distribution once again is highly
R inhomogeneous, discrete and anisotropic.

Usually the cosmic microwave background is taken as further evidence
that the Universe is homogeneous on large scales. It is homogeneous
to about 1 part in 100,000, and it originates from a distance of about
150,000 Mpc.

Now you're free to argue that the CMB is incorrectly interpreted, but
that's a tough argument to make given the wealth of supporting
evidence, and I've certainly not seen anybody make anything
approaching a convincing argument in this forum.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote:

Usually the cosmic microwave background is taken as further evidence
that the Universe is homogeneous on large scales. It is homogeneous
to about 1 part in 100,000, and it originates from a distance of about
150,000 Mpc.

Now you're free to argue that the CMB is incorrectly interpreted, but
that's a tough argument to make given the wealth of supporting
evidence, and I've certainly not seen anybody make anything
approaching a convincing argument in this forum.


You can say "the Universe is homogeneous on large scales" as many times
as you like, but that will not change the fact that the claim is
scientifically dubious.

As I have demonstrated, the actual observed distribution of matter
gives us no reason to support your idealistic over-simplification.

Now you switch to a new tack and drag out the beleagured CMB. It has a
major dipole anisotropy, weird things and relationships have been
detected with regard to the quadrupole and octopole moments, and as if
the foregoing were not bad enough, even weirder planarities which line
up with the Ecliptic Plane (!) have been discovered. Many
astrophysicists are beginning to wonder if our initial interpretation
of the CMB was also an idealistic over-simplification. At any rate the
CMB has lost much of its cachet as an argument for "homogeneity".

Moreover, it is the distribution of matter that is most closely related
to nature's actual geometry.

I think you need to ask yourself why the "homogeneity" idealization is
so important to you and others who would defend the Substandard
Paradigm in spite of any observational evidence. Perhaps, as de
Vaucouleurs noted long ago, it is because General Relativity is so much
easier to handle when one makes the questionable assumptions of
homogeneity and isotropy. That is what you were taught in grad school
and you cannot believe that you learned a flawed cosmological paradigm.
But in science we must always question our assumptions. Right?

Robert L. Oldershaw

"R" == Rob writes:

R Joseph Lazio wrote:
Usually the cosmic microwave background is taken as further
evidence that the Universe is homogeneous on large scales. It is
homogeneous to about 1 part in 100,000, and it originates from a
distance of about 150,000 Mpc.

Now you're free to argue that the CMB is incorrectly interpreted,
but that's a tough argument to make given the wealth of supporting
evidence, and I've certainly not seen anybody make anything
approaching a convincing argument in this forum.

R You can say "the Universe is homogeneous on large scales" as many
R times as you like, but that will not change the fact that the claim
R is scientifically dubious.

It took me all of 90 seconds to find Yadav et al. (2005, URL:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...NRAS.364..601Y
). They test the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data for homogeneity using
a multi-fractal analysis. Their final conclusion is, "Interpreting
the actual data as a realization of a biased {\Lambda}CDM universe, we
conclude that the galaxy distribution is homogeneous on scales larger
than 60--70 h^{-1} Mpc." The introduction to their paper also lists a
number of other works that generally, though not always, find a
homogeneous distribution of galaxies on scales larger than roughly 70
Mpc.

On balance, the bulk of the evidence is consistent with the notion
that the Universe is homogeneous on scales larger than 100 Mpc.

R Now you switch to a new tack and drag out the beleagured CMB. It
R has a major dipole anisotropy, weird things and relationships have
R been detected with regard to the quadrupole and octopole moments,
R and as if the foregoing were not bad enough, even weirder
R planarities which line up with the Ecliptic Plane (!) have been
R discovered. Many astrophysicists are beginning to wonder if our
R initial interpretation of the CMB was also an idealistic
R over-simplification. At any rate the CMB has lost much of its
R cachet as an argument for "homogeneity".

"Beleaguered CMB"? You mean like the CMB studies of Mather and Smoot?

No matter how many times you repeat "many astrophysicists," it doesn't
change the fact that the CMB is remarkably homogeneous, at the level
of 1 part in 100,000. The dipole anistropy is easily explained by our
motion with respect to the CMB. Indeed, given that we know that the
Earth moves around the Sun and the Sun moves around the Galactic
center, *not* seeing a dipole anisotropy would be a problem.


R I think you need to ask yourself why the "homogeneity" idealization
R is so important to you and others who would defend the Substandard
R Paradigm in spite of any observational evidence. Perhaps, as de
R Vaucouleurs noted long ago, it is because General Relativity is so
R much easier to handle when one makes the questionable assumptions
R of homogeneity and isotropy. That is what you were taught in grad
R school and you cannot believe that you learned a flawed
R cosmological paradigm. But in science we must always question our
R assumptions. Right?

From Yadav et al., "The assumption that the Universe is homogeneous
and isotropic on large scales is known as the cosmological principle,
and is one of the fundamental pillars of cosmology. In addition to
determining the large-scale structures, galaxy redshift surveys can
also be used to verify that the galaxy distribution does indeed become
homogeneous on large scales, and thereby validate the cosmological
principle."




--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"Inyuki" wrote in message
ups.com...
There is a hypothesis, that whole Universe could be generated by some
simple rule set up as a program.

Some data about the very early Universe is already available from the
astronomical observations, and I think these distant patterns of the
Universe (maybe something like the data about CMB [Cosmic Microwave
Radiation]) could be technically comparable to the patterns produced by
simple rules (such as cellular automaton).

I would like to know if there is existing any research group or
research program, aiming to do the kind of comparisons [comparing early
universe with systematically generated patterns].

Sorry for disturbing, I am asking just because I could not find that
kind of research for long time, and this looks like a very interesting
thing to do.

Prof Steinhardt, a founder of inflationary theory, is now proposing
a cyclic universe based on chaos and complexity science.
On the concepts of attractor theory and self organizing systems.

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/


--
Mindaugas Indriunas (Inyuki/=1B$B$_$s$G$#=1B(B/=1B$BL@ml=1B(B)
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Inyuki

Inyuki wrote:
I would like to know if there is existing any research group or
research program, aiming to do the kind of comparisons [comparing early
universe with systematically generated patterns].

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/sims.html

Spud