Is anyone out there comparing large-scale Universe patterns?

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

This hypothesis is called physics ;-)

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.

The CMB dates from a time when the universe was already quite old and
large in the context of its smallest structures. (It had cooled to a
few thousand degrees.)

So any patterns we can see in the microwave background are going to
involve very large-scale variations (temperature variations caused by
density variations, essentially).

It is likely that these density variations date from a time when the
universe was much younger; conceivably they could relate to a 'seed'
pattern from which the universe evolved, according to a cellular
automaton or some other rule. But if so, it wouldn't tell us much
about the rules of the cellular automaton, except that it preserves
density variations, something already known by the name of
'conservation of mass'.

- Gerry Quinn

Joseph Lazio wrote:

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


So you probably think that all this business about Eternal Inflation,
Multiverses and Fractals is just idle speculation, at best.

You also probably think that the "Universe" suddenly "ends" on scales
which just happen to coincide with the largest scales we can currently
observe. My, what an interesting coincidence! Very scientific! Sort of
a 'What you see is all you get' version of reality?

Dream on and be sure to keep repeating the Substandard Paradigm's
mantra: "Often wrong, never in doubt".

Robert L. Oldershaw

"R" == Rob writes:

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

R So you probably think that all this business about Eternal
R Inflation, Multiverses and Fractals is just idle speculation, at
R best.

Ah, good point. I assumed it was obvious, but to be explicit I should
have written that the *observable* Universe is consistent with being
homogeneous on scales larger than about 100 Mpc.

As for eternal inflation, multiverses, and the like, this is a bit off
the topic. They are interesting ideas, but, at this point, I think
they must fall on the boundary of physics. How does one test the
Multiverse concept?


R You also probably think that the "Universe" suddenly "ends" on
R scales which just happen to coincide with the largest scales we can
R currently observe. My, what an interesting coincidence! Very
R scientific! Sort of a 'What you see is all you get' version of
R reality?

Actually, if you look at my previous posts (say at Google), I've
stated many times that the evidence is consistent with a Universe much
larger than the observable Universe, though again, it's a bit
difficult to test some of these ideas.

R Dream on and be sure to keep repeating the Substandard Paradigm's
R mantra: "Often wrong, never in doubt".

The casual reader will undoubtedly note the bait-n-switch that Rob is
pulling. He starts off claiming that the observable Universe is
fractal. When confronted with actual studies that have attempted to
test this idea, and generally found it wanting, he ignores them and
wonders off to the Multiverse and the like.

--
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:

Ah, good point. I assumed it was obvious, but to be explicit I should
have written that the *observable* Universe is consistent with being
homogeneous on scales larger than about 100 Mpc.


The "observable universe" (note small u) and the "Universe" (note large
U) are two different concepts. They should not be used interchangeably
because that leads to erroneous statements and misunderstanding.


As for eternal inflation, multiverses, and the like, this is a bit off
the topic. They are interesting ideas, but, at this point, I think
they must fall on the boundary of physics. How does one test the
Multiverse concept?

1. Extend observational capabilities.
2. Improve our understanding of the observable universe and that will
improve extrapolations into the unknown.


Actually, if you look at my previous posts (say at Google), I've
stated many times that the evidence is consistent with a Universe much
larger than the observable Universe, though again, it's a bit
difficult to test some of these ideas.

This is why we need to distinguish "o. u." from "U".


The casual reader will undoubtedly note the bait-n-switch that Rob is
pulling. He starts off claiming that the observable Universe is
fractal. When confronted with actual studies that have attempted to
test this idea, and generally found it wanting, he ignores them and
wonders off to the Multiverse and the like.

If you go back and read my posts you will see that I try to be
scientific in my use of concepts and terminology. Your comment contains
inaccuracies, but I am losing interest.

On the other hand, I could be re-motivated if anyone wants to talk
about the fact that the Standard Paradigm is relatively clueless when
it comes to predicting the specific nature of the dark matter, which
constitutes 90% of all observable matter. Makes "Precision Cosmology"
seem like an oxymoron.
The Discrete Fractal Paradigm, www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , in
contrast, can make detailed predictions about what the dark matter
*must* be if the DFP is correct. This type of definitive
prediction/testing is crucial to the unending search for better
paradigms.

Robert L. Oldershaw

Anyone care for a scientific discussion of this serious shortcoming of
the Substandard Paradigm (cosmology + particle physics)?

"On the other hand, I could be re-motivated if anyone wants to talk
about the fact that the Standard Paradigm is relatively clueless when
it comes to predicting the specific nature of the dark matter, which
constitutes 90% of all observable matter.

Makes "Precision Cosmology" seem like an oxymoron.

The Discrete Fractal Paradigm, www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , in
contrast, can make detailed predictions about what the dark matter
*must* be if the DFP is correct. This type of definitive
prediction/testing is crucial to the unending search for better
paradigms."

(Polemics welcomed, barking dogs ignored.)


Robert L. Oldershaw