Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-large-quasar-group_n_2455552.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429

David A. Smith

On 12/01/2013 8:38 PM, dlzc wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-large-quasar-group_n_2455552.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429

David A. Smith

Yup, according to cosmological principle, there can be no structures
greater than about 1.2 billion light-years, otherwise it would violate
the CMBR analysis. At its smallest direction this structure is 1.6
billion light-years across, and its largest direction it is 4 billion
light-years. So even its smallest direction violates the cosmological
principle.

My feeling is that the CMBR is less informative about the Big Bang than
people would like to believe.

Yousuf Khan

On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Jan 2013 01:03:54 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

On 12/01/2013 8:38 PM, dlzc wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-large-quasar-group_n_2455552.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429

David A. Smith

Yup, according to cosmological principle, there can be no structures
greater than about 1.2 billion light-years, otherwise it would violate
the CMBR analysis. At its smallest direction this structure is 1.6
billion light-years across, and its largest direction it is 4 billion
light-years. So even its smallest direction violates the cosmological
principle.

My feeling is that the CMBR is less informative about the Big Bang than
people would like to believe.

Yousuf Khan

There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones,
just like we have many exploding [types of] stars.

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 4:51:01 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Jan 2013 01:03:54 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan

wrote in :



On 12/01/2013 8:38 PM, dlzc wrote:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-large-quasar-group_n_2455552.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429



David A. Smith



Yup, according to cosmological principle, there can be no structures

greater than about 1.2 billion light-years, otherwise it would violate

the CMBR analysis. At its smallest direction this structure is 1.6

billion light-years across, and its largest direction it is 4 billion

light-years. So even its smallest direction violates the cosmological

principle.



My feeling is that the CMBR is less informative about the Big Bang than

people would like to believe.



Yousuf Khan



There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones,

just like we have many exploding [types of] stars.

It is just as likely that there were never any bangs that created anything near as big as a galaxy, nor anything as big as every galaxy known. The big bang is a theory, just like Einsteins unexpanding universe was a theory.

On Jan 13, 1:51*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Jan 2013 01:03:54 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :









On 12/01/2013 8:38 PM, dlzc wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-univers....maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429

David A. Smith

Yup, according to cosmological principle, there can be no structures
greater than about 1.2 billion light-years, otherwise it would violate
the CMBR analysis. At its smallest direction this structure is 1.6
billion light-years across, and its largest direction it is 4 billion
light-years. So even its smallest direction violates the cosmological
principle.

My feeling is that the CMBR is less informative about the Big Bang than
people would like to believe.

* * * *Yousuf Khan

There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones,
just like we have many exploding [types of] stars.

Indeed, as well as the Big Ongoing as mpc755 has to say.

On 13/01/2013 4:51 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones,
just like we have many exploding [types of] stars.

I don't disagree, but what has this got to do with it?

Yousuf Khan

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:05:37 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

On 13/01/2013 4:51 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones,
just like we have many exploding [types of] stars.

I don't disagree, but what has this got to do with it?

Yousuf Khan

I could imagine 'debris' from one bang found in that of an other bang.

I do not remember who it was, but there was this well known scientist
few years ago who described a method how to find remains of other (possibly earlier?)
bangs.

So to say 'what we see conflicts with what we expect in THIS 'universe' or 'bang'',
assumes a lot.

For me, it is a bit like saying one earth is the only habitable planet.
My view, if there was a bang, chances are there were or are more than that.
Very few in nature is unique.

OTOH 'random' fluctuations can take peculiar forms,
I have read that summary (chapter 4 IIRC),
and even they say it could just be a fluke.

On 15/01/2013 2:24 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:05:37 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote :

On 13/01/2013 4:51 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones,
just like we have many exploding [types of] stars.

I don't disagree, but what has this got to do with it?

Yousuf Khan

I could imagine 'debris' from one bang found in that of an other bang.

Oh well, that's not the same as my concept of ongoing "bangs". My
concept would be that there are ongoing bangs creating new universes all
of the time, except that they'd exist in their own space-time bubbles.
No intermingling with the previous universe, after the bang.

I do not remember who it was, but there was this well known scientist
few years ago who described a method how to find remains of other (possibly earlier?)
bangs.

I think these are the people behind the Ekpyrotic Universe concept, and
similar concepts, which envision a cycle of birth and death of
universes. They envision maybe being able to see an echo of the previous
universe based on patterns left over on the CMB in this universe. I'm
now thinking that people assign too much significance to the CMBR, and
see patterns where there aren't any.

There was even a sci-fi program, Stargate Universe, which was based on a
mission to find out what created a pattern in the CMBR. The pattern
discovered by an alien race which built an empty alien starship going to
explore the source of that mysterious pattern and now inhabited by a
human military research team. As I said too many people seeing patterns
in the sky.

OTOH 'random' fluctuations can take peculiar forms,
I have read that summary (chapter 4 IIRC),
and even they say it could just be a fluke.

The fluke covers about 0.3% of the surface area of the visible universe!
Quite a significant fluke. I'd love to see if they find others of
comparable or nearly comparable size (i.e. anything bigger than the
Cosmological Principle's theorized size).

Yousuf Khan

On Jan 12, 5:38*pm, dlzc wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-univers...maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429

David A. Smith

Who the hell really needs the Big Bang, other than Sheldon Cooper and
religion?

What's wrong with the Big Ongoing?

Dear Brad Guth:

On Monday, January 14, 2013 3:00:59 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
....
Who the hell really needs the Big Bang, other
than Sheldon Cooper and religion?

Anyone that does not want to trigger another Inquisition?

What's wrong with the Big Ongoing?

Not enough iron. No way to "dissipate" entropy.

David A. Smith