CMB: Farewell Isotropy?

For those following important developments in cosmology, I highly
recommend the following new paper on confirmed observations of dipole
and quadrupole anisotropies in the CMB.

Hoftuft et al, Astrophysical Journal, 699: 985-989, 2009 July 10

also available at: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...903.1229v2.pdf

Some relevant quotations from the Conclusions are as follows.

"To summarize, there is currently substantial evidence for both
dipolar (Hansen et al. 2008 and this work) and quadrupolar power
distribution (Groeneboom & Eriksen 2009) in the WMAP data, and this is
seen at all probed scales.'

"The evidence for violation of statistical isotropy in the CMB is
currently increasing rapidly, and the significance of these detections
[is] approaching 4 [sigma]."

Perhaps we are entering a period in cosmology where Platonic ideals,
like perfect homogeneity and isotropy, give way to to more realistic
and observationally-based descriptions of nature, which is clearly far
more subtle and sophisticated than the crude mathematical
simplifications of the past.

[[Mod. note -- I think that era arrived some time ago. For example,
Jim Peebles' 1980 textbook "The Large-Scale Structure of the Unierse"
was almost entirely devoted to the mathematical analysis of various
deviations from homogeneity & isotropy.
-- jt]]

The devil may be in the details, but the good lord is in the few
elegant principles upon which all of nature is based. Perhaps we might
do well to put a little more effort and creativity into our
exploration of the latter.

Yours in science (the kind that makes definitive testable
predictions),
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw

In article
,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

Perhaps we are entering a period in cosmology where Platonic ideals,
like perfect homogeneity and isotropy, give way to to more realistic
and observationally-based descriptions of nature, which is clearly far
more subtle and sophisticated than the crude mathematical
simplifications of the past.

[[Mod. note -- I think that era arrived some time ago. For example,
Jim Peebles' 1980 textbook "The Large-Scale Structure of the Unierse"
was almost entirely devoted to the mathematical analysis of various
deviations from homogeneity & isotropy.
-- jt]]

Indeed. Essentially ALL the literature on the CMB is concerned with
deviations from isotropy. That's certainly thousands if not tens of
thousands of papers.

On Jul 2, 9:09Â*am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:

Indeed. Â*Essentially ALL the literature on the CMB is concerned with
deviations from isotropy. Â*That's certainly thousands if not tens of
thousands of papers.


Would you then say that inhomogeneous cosmological models are now the
norm?


[[Mod. note -- Note that "deviation from isotropy" and "inhomogeneous"
have historically been used to mean two somewhat different things in
cosmology: The first means that the universe isn't precisely isotropic,
while the second usually implies *large* deviations from isotropy.
-- jt]]

On Jul 2, 3:16Â*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Jul 2, 9:09Â*am, (Phillip Helbig---

Indeed. Â*Essentially ALL the literature on the CMB is concerned with
deviations from isotropy. Â*That's certainly thousands if not tens of
thousands of papers.

Would you then say that inhomogeneous cosmological models are now the
norm?

[[Mod. note -- Note that "deviation from isotropy" and "inhomogeneous"
have historically been used to mean two somewhat different things in
cosmology: Â*The first means that the universe isn't precisely isotropic,
while the second usually implies *large* deviations from isotropy.
-- jt]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In hierarchical or fractal cosmological models that involve
fundamental and global self-similarity, the issues of isotropy and
"homogeneity" must be revisited and reanalyzed without the biases of
previous Platonic ideals.

This is discussed in Mandelbrot's book; The Fractal Geometry of Nature
[~1980]. It was also emphasized in a prophetic Science article by de
Vaucouleurs [~1970] even before that. In the 1990s and the 21st
century Pietronero's group has argued that large-scale cosmological
observations are better explained by fractal models, and that the 20th
century models assumed homogeneity and isotropy a priori. Those trying
to generate interest in fractal paradigms have been on the receiving
end of a great deal of resistance, as you may verify by communicating
with them.

With the "multiverse" concept gaining ground, we are beginning to see
the emergence of new ideas about the fundamental structure and
organization of nature. Paradigmatic change is a slow affair, and a
difficult one for many.

The point of my post was to explore the degree to which the thinking
of the previous author, and that of other readers, has evolved in
recent years. Hopefully before too long we will all be on the same
page.

Yours in science (the traditional kind that questions assumptions),
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw

Hello Robert!

I would like you to have a look (if you do not know
this site already?) on the newsletter, which is
published monthly by Alternative Cosmology Group,
link: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/index.html

Good references, links to the most interesing papers in the
field, including not only Hansen et. all, but also recent Kundt,
Burbidge, Sandage works and many, many other publications.
Especially this paper entitled "Cosmologists in the dark"
by Virginia Trimble is worth reading (arXiv:0904.1126)
and mentioned over there Horvath e-Print (arXiv:0809.2839).
Brilliant stuff.

For me it is clear, that researchers who do not support Standard
Cosmological Model do not have, generally speaking the easy life
those days. It is sad, that they have to struggle for recognition, are
frequently blacklisted by their colleagues, who moderate arxive
library, or removed from the telescopes, because they have
seen "some illegally red shifted objects" on the sky.

Anyway SCM supporters commit one serious mistake. They
take for granted, that man made experiments, which can falsify their
position are outside of limits of the all-times technology
and consequently impossible to realise.

But you know me already it is simply not the true.


Pawel Karwowski

On Jul 7, 6:11=A0am, Pawel Karwowski wrote:

Especially this paper entitled "Cosmologists in the dark"
by Virginia Trimble is worth reading (arXiv:0904.1126)


An interesting comparison can be made on the "acceptability" of
ideas in physics/cosmology today.

Physical Review Letters is one of leading physics journals. In a
recent issue, the following article appeared: "Mass Ejection by
Strange Star Mergers and Observational Implications" by
Bauswein et al, PRL, 103, 011101 (2009).

This paper speculates that if "strange quark matter" exists,
and if it is the "absolute ground state of matter", and if SM
can form "strange stars", and if these SSs are numerous to
collide, and if the hypothetical collisions lead to the
ejection of "strangelets" [small lumps of strange matter], then
the "strangelets" might convert all neutron stars to "strange
stars", but the existence of ordinary neutron stars cannot be
used as evidence against the "strange matter hypothesis".

This is what is called "science" today?! None of it is testable
in any definitive way. It appears to be highly "adjustable".

Now compare what would happen if you tried to publish a
paper on a fractal cosmological paradigm that is testable
in Physics Review Letters. I have tried. The rejections
always say the ideas are "too speculative".

So here is the bottom line. You can spin the most
speculative hypotheses and get them accepted at
PRL, and most physics journals, if they are "approved
speculation". But if your ideas are not of the approved
variety, then forget it, even if your ideas are derived
from observations of nature and make testable predictions.

Such is the sorry state of physics today, and one must
wonder how long this sad state can be allowed to continue
before honest, rational scientists stand up and say; Enough!"

Yours in science (the kind Einstein advocated and practiced)
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw

In article
,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

In hierarchical or fractal cosmological models that involve
fundamental and global self-similarity, the issues of isotropy and
"homogeneity" must be revisited and reanalyzed without the biases of
previous Platonic ideals.

This is discussed in Mandelbrot's book; The Fractal Geometry of Nature
[~1980]. It was also emphasized in a prophetic Science article by de
Vaucouleurs [~1970] even before that. In the 1990s and the 21st
century Pietronero's group has argued that large-scale cosmological
observations are better explained by fractal models,

This group has been making this claim for years; has any OTHER group
made the claim?

and that the 20th
century models assumed homogeneity and isotropy a priori.

In the old days, yes, to some extent. However, observations of distant
radio sources, the CMB etc show isotropy to a large degree; unless we
are in a preferred position that implies homogeneity. So, homogeneity
and isotropy are no longer assumptions but the result of observations.

With the "multiverse" concept gaining ground, we are beginning to see
the emergence of new ideas about the fundamental structure and
organization of nature.

Perhaps, but what has this to do with fractal paradigms?

On Jul 8, 4:15 pm, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:

So, homogeneity
and isotropy are no longer assumptions but the result of observations.

I think it would be more scientifically correct to say: (1) our local
Hubble Bubble is approximately homogeneous and isotropic, (2) there
are observed deviations from idealized homogeneity and isotropy in the
local Hubble Bubble, and (3) the degree of approximate homogeneity and
isotropy that applies within the local Hubble Bubble may be
scientifically inapplicable when larger regions of the cosmos are
considered, as is the case when smaller scale structure is
inventoried.


With the "multiverse" concept gaining ground, we are beginning to see
the emergence of new ideas about the fundamental structure and
organization of nature.

Perhaps, but what has this to do with fractal paradigms?

Eternal inflation and the multiverse concept have intrinsic self-
similar properties and are referred to by those who developed the
ideas, such as A. Linde, as having fractal properties. Not to mention
making some previous cosmological assumptions possibly very obsolete.

Finally, with regard to Pietronero's group being on the receiving end
of considerable ignorance, remember Galileo's comment that "in
science, the authority of a thousand in not worth the humble reasoning
of a single individual". Personally I think cosmologists and HEP
physicists need to review Scientific Method 101.

Hope this helps,
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/Robe...ale-Relativity

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

So, homogeneity
and isotropy are no longer assumptions but the result of observations.

I think it would be more scientifically correct to say: (1) our local
Hubble Bubble is approximately homogeneous and isotropic,

We can't observe much else (depending on how "Hubble Bubble" is
defined), so, if science should talk about observable things, then it's
fair to say that the observable universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

(2) there
are observed deviations from idealized homogeneity and isotropy in the
local Hubble Bubble,

Small ones, yes; otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

and (3) the degree of approximate homogeneity and
isotropy that applies within the local Hubble Bubble may be
scientifically inapplicable when larger regions of the cosmos are
considered,

But unless you can observe these areas, or otherwise learn something
about them, then this is speculation, not science.

as is the case when smaller scale structure is
inventoried.

Of course smaller-scale structure is not homogeneous and isotropic;
again, if that were the case, we wouldn't be here.

Homogeneity is not something magic. In the old days, it was an
assumption, since in that case it's easier to say how the universe as a
whole behaves. It could have happened that observations ruled this out,
but that didn't happen, so today it is an observation, and we can thus
relatively easily say how the universe as a whole behaves. What happens
on small scales doesn't influence how the universe as a whole behaves.

Finally, with regard to Pietronero's group being on the receiving end
of considerable ignorance, remember Galileo's comment that "in
science, the authority of a thousand in not worth the humble reasoning
of a single individual". Personally I think cosmologists and HEP
physicists need to review Scientific Method 101.

"A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is
persecuted; he must also be right." ---Stephen Jay Gould

On Jul 9, 12:02=A0pm, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:

We can't observe much else (depending on how "Hubble Bubble" is
defined), so, if science should talk about observable things, then it's
fair to say that the observable universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the observable universe
is approximately homogeneous and approximately isoropic.


and (3) the degree of approximate homogeneity and
isotropy that applies within the local Hubble Bubble may be
scientifically inapplicable when larger regions of the cosmos are
considered,

But unless you can observe these areas, or otherwise learn something
about them, then this is speculation, not science.

Fair enough, IF the definitions of science and speculation are
applied
consistently and objectively. However, all to often these concepts
are
applied with a selective and subjective bias.


What happens
on small scales doesn't influence how the universe as a whole behaves.

Can we be sure of this? Especially when the concept of "the universe
as a whole" tends to be such a subjective and speculative term.


"A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is
persecuted; he must also be right." =A0 ---Stephen Jay Gould

Corollary: 'Merely because one is persecuted or ignored does not mean
that he is wrong.' The history of science has many well known
examples
that confirm this corollary. The fact that Pietronero's group is
"ignored"
says nothing dependably scientific about whether or not their
argument
for a fractal large scale structure is right or wrong.

RLO