• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Edmond Dantès

It belongs in a museum!
Member
Aug 24, 2022
5,421
UK
STScI-01FFTM87Y05EEAY9XMHC35RJJN.jpg


Meeting at London's Royal Society will scrutinise basic model first formulated in 1922 that universe is a vast, even expanse with no notable features.
If you zoomed out on the universe, well beyond the level of planets, stars or galaxies, you would eventually see a vast, evenly speckled expanse with no notable features. At least, that has been the conventional view.

The principle that everything looks the same everywhere is a fundamental pillar of the standard model of cosmology, which aims to explain the big bang and how the universe has evolved in the 13.7bn years since.

But this week a meeting of some of the world's leading cosmologists will convene at London's Royal Society to ask the question: what if this basic assumption is wrong?

The meeting comes after a number of high-profile astronomical observations have challenged the conventional view, according to Prof Subir Sarkar, a cosmologist at the University of Oxford and co-organiser of the meeting.

"We are, in cosmology, using a model that was first formulated in 1922," he said. "We have great data, but the theoretical basis is past its sell-by date. More and more people are saying the same thing and these are respected astronomers."

The conference brings together some of the scientists behind the recent anomalous findings. These include observations that suggest the universe is expanding more quickly in some regions than others, hints at megastructures in the night sky and evidence for cosmic flows – vast celestial rivers of material on a scale that cannot be readily accommodated within conventional theories.

Dr Nathan Secrest, of the US Naval Observatory and a collaborator with Sarkar, is presenting findings that raise the possibility that the universe is slightly lopsided. After analysing a catalogue of more than 1m quasars (extremely luminous galactic cores), the team found that one hemisphere of the sky appeared to host roughly 0.5% more sources than the other.
It may not sound like a major discrepancy but, according to Sarkar, if confirmed it would undermine the basis for dark energy, which is supposed to be the dominant component of the universe. "It would mean that two-thirds of the universe has just disappeared," Sarkar said.

Dr Konstantinos Migkas, of Leiden University, will share findings that the Hubble constant – the rate at which the universe is expanding – appears to vary across space. "Our results add another problematic piece to the puzzle," Migkas said. At a local scale, at least, this suggests that observations do not match predictions of the standard model. "We can't extrapolate that it's wrong over the full universe," he added.

Alexia Lopez, a PhD student at the University of Central Lancashire, has discovered what appear to be cosmic megastructures, named Big Ring and Giant Arc. These shapes, traced out by galaxies and galaxy clusters, occur on a scale beyond which the universe should be smooth and effectively featureless.

"When we're finding a list of structures that are exceeding this scale, are they challenging this assumption that is so fundamental in cosmology?" said Lopez. "Maybe there needs to be more of a critical analysis of our standard model."

Sarkar suggests that belief in the standard model of cosmology has been so deeply ingrained that it is treated as "the religion". "I find that frankly annoying that this principle hasn't been checked," he said, although not everyone agrees with this characterisation.

Prof George Efstathiou, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge, who is presenting a more sceptical take at the conference, said it was not true that the model had not been repeatedly interrogated. "People accuse me of defending the model," he said. "But what they don't realise is how much time I've spent trying to disprove it. I completely disagree that's there's some kind of groupthink."

Efstathiou said that while intriguing, none of the anomalies being presented were compelling enough to undermine standard theories. "The question is: how good are the data?" he said. The claimed lopsidedness of the universe, for instance, could be due to the necessary use of multiple telescopes to observe different hemispheres of the sky, so that sifting through data to look for patterns would inevitably throw up what appeared to be anomalies, he suggested. "The Big Circle in the sky, I definitely don't believe in," he said.

Prof Wendy Freedman, who is presenting new findings from the James Webb space telescope, said: "Here are all these tantalising threads at varying levels of significance. We need more exploration on where, if at all, the standard model breaks down. I don't think there is an obvious thing that is going to stand the test of time."

This kind of robust debate is welcome at the conference. "I'm looking forward to a vigorous discussion," said Sarkar. "Let them come at it with everything they've got."
 

Melpomene

One Winged Slayer
Member
Jun 9, 2019
18,306
Why the hell did it take me a second not to read that as "cosmetologists"?
 

RUFF BEEST

Member
Jun 10, 2022
2,043
Toronto, ON
Dark energy always felt like a "hack" needed to make the big bang theory work. I still recall in astronomy 101 being confused when they said that all observed light in the universe that we can see is redshifted, in all directions, and the farther the light is coming from the more redshifted it is. My first thought was simply, "oh, light must slow down after extremely long journeys" but nope -- the explanation they decided on was that the entire universe was expanding? In fact not only must that mean the universe is expanding, but -- big brain idea time -- if you run that backwards, it means the universe was once teeny tiny! So that's how we get the "big bang." Hmm. Now, that doesn't work at all, you might think, because of how gravitational forces of these giant masses would act on each other and fight against this expansion, like, a fucking lot -- but, don't worry, here comes "dark energy" -- a concept for which there is absolutely no evidence other than the need for the math to work out, thus it's more like it's "predicted" to exist and we've been searching for it ever since -- to complete the model and push it all along. And not only has dark energy never been observed, but in this model, it comprises 2/3rds of the universe. Do that, and the model works great. Impressed?

I mean, these are the kinds of skeptical "I'm so smart" thoughts I had when I was 18, I basically accept the standard model now. But we'll see. Black holes were also only predicted to exist at one point and we've directly observed them now. And cosmic background radiation is more "expanding universe" evidence. I should delve into cosmology more, I enjoyed that class back in uni. And obviously, there is a lot more I could know about all this :P
 
Last edited:

julia crawford

Took the red AND the blue pills
Member
Oct 27, 2017
35,337
i'm half expecting a new model to come up that deals with very big scales and for the new hotness to be how to model quantum standard and heckin big all at the same time
 

Mivey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,831
UCLan, where that PhD student discovered these two super structures, has an article with some nice illustrations on her discoveries.
big-ring-figure-2.xc40606d9.jpg

Puts into perspective how gigantic these structures are: despite being billions of light years away, they would still occupy 20 times the size of the moon on our night sky, if we could see them with the naked eye
 

Mr Swine

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
6,045
Sweden
Isn't there a possibility that the universe has always been here? That the Big Bang is like detonating a nuke in space which the shockwave travels at all directions?
 

Palas

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,810
I hope it breaks down. I really hope there's a new model, one that fills humanity with a positive sense of wonder ("holy shit the universe is crazy lmao") and not a negative one ("ever noticed the universe is sooooo big and featureless and will end in heat death")
 

Clefargle

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,145
Limburg
Dark energy always felt like a "hack" needed to make the big bang theory work. I still recall in astronomy 101 being confused when they said that all observed light in the universe that we can see is redshifted, in all directions, and the farther the light is coming from the more redshifted it is. My first thought was simply, "oh, light must slow down after extremely long journeys" but nope -- the explanation they decided on was that the entire universe was expanding? In fact not only must that mean the universe is expanding, but -- big brain idea time -- if you run that backwards, it means the universe was once teeny tiny! So that's how we get the "big bang." Hmm. Now, that doesn't work at all, you might think, because of how gravitational forces of these giant masses would act on each other and fight against this expansion, like, a fucking lot -- but, don't worry, here comes "dark energy" -- a concept for which there is absolutely no evidence other than the need for the math to work out, thus it's more like it's "predicted" to exist and we've been searching for it ever since -- to complete the model and push it all along. And not only has dark energy never been observed, but in this model, it comprises 2/3rds of the universe. Do that, and the model works great. Impressed?

I mean, these are the kinds of skeptical "I'm so smart" thoughts I had when I was 18, I basically accept the standard model now. But we'll see. Black holes were also only predicted to exist at one point and we've directly observed them now. And cosmic background radiation is more "expanding universe" evidence. I should delve into cosmology more, I enjoyed that class back in uni. And obviously, there is a lot more I could know about all this :P

This is the "tired light" hypothesis and it can be roundly disproved in a number of ways:


View: https://youtu.be/1uYB9KOYGuk?si=k7vmbYlzpwV98QuN
 

Qikz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,511
There's a hell of a lot we don't understand and can't explain about the universe. Any understanding of the universe is highly likely going to change at points as we can explore further and see more - but even then without actually going everywhere it's difficult to really say if the laws of the universe as we understand them even apply everywhere in the same way the more we can discover and it shouldn't be a big shock if things don't work exactly how we already believe.
 

Peru

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,138
Whatever the answer is, nothign in my lifetime will actually be able to answer what the hell the universe really is, fundamentally, big picture style, and well.. it is kind of comforting to have these mysteries of our existence.
 

Shoot

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,561
UCLan, where that PhD student discovered these two super structures, has an article with some nice illustrations on her discoveries.
big-ring-figure-2.xc40606d9.jpg

Puts into perspective how gigantic these structures are: despite being billions of light years away, they would still occupy 20 times the size of the moon on our night sky, if we could see them with the naked eye
Wow. That's way larger than I expected.
 

thediamondage

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,304
fascinating stuff, dark energy and dark matter have always intuitively felt like bad hacks to explain away why things don't seem right but of course intuition about astronomy seems doomed since our brains can't really handle the sizes and numbers involved with the universe.

It'll be fascinating to see what this leads to, we still know so little about the universe. If cosmic uniformity is false and the universe is not the same everywhere it could lead to all kinds of wild outcomes, like maybe we are in a part of the universe that is insanely different than most of the universe which could explain away things like the Fermi Paradox, the expansion/acceleration of expansion, and maybe even our basic assumptions about the timescales of the universe. A lot of it is based on the idea that no matter where you look in the universe the rules of physics and distribution of everything is the same, but that is an assumption that really doesn't need to be true.
 

Clefargle

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,145
Limburg
I hope it breaks down. I really hope there's a new model, one that fills humanity with a positive sense of wonder ("holy shit the universe is crazy lmao") and not a negative one ("ever noticed the universe is sooooo big and featureless and will end in heat death")

This is kinda subjective at best and disingenuous at worst and also not what the researchers are saying. Positive/negative sense of wonder is gonna differ from person to person. The vastness of the universe doesn't have to be "good" or "bad", it just "is". If the universe were incredible chaotic and not uniform in any way, many people would probably not experience "positive" wonder about that. Heat death is another thing that sounds bad but it actually just means time has no end we can currently predict. Which means that the universe itself won't end. How you feel about that is your own subjective interpretation of meaning and should rightfully be divorced from whatever we discover in the future.
 

Palas

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,810
This is kinda subjective at best and disingenuous at worst and also not what the researchers are saying. Positive/negative sense of wonder is gonna differ from person to person. The vastness of the universe doesn't have to be "good" or "bad", it just "is". If the universe were incredible chaotic and not uniform in any way, many people would probably not experience "positive" wonder about that. Heat death is another thing that sounds bad but it actually just means time has no end we can currently predict. Which means that the universe itself won't end. How you feel about that is your own subjective interpretation of meaning and should rightfully be divorced from whatever we discover in the future.

I could have been more specific about what I had in mind, which was Neil DeGrasse Tyson-style "we know things have no meaning and the Earth is just a ball like all the others trillions upon trillions", which a model that basically says "nope, it's much crazier" would prevent. It's not an uncommon view by any means, by the way, and is a pretty annoying one.
 

julia crawford

Took the red AND the blue pills
Member
Oct 27, 2017
35,337
I hope it breaks down. I really hope there's a new model, one that fills humanity with a positive sense of wonder ("holy shit the universe is crazy lmao") and not a negative one ("ever noticed the universe is sooooo big and featureless and will end in heat death")

in the year 3024 we will be bored with cube planets and sentient galaxies and wormholes having sex and people who live in the sun, asking for a more entertaining model to somehow make us imagine even crazier stuff
 

Fat4all

Woke up, got a money tag, swears a lot
Member
Oct 25, 2017
93,119
here
can they get Cosmology of Kyoto working on windows 11 PCs, asking for a friend
 

Clefargle

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,145
Limburg
I could have been more specific about what I had in mind, which was Neil DeGrasse Tyson-style "we know things have no meaning and the Earth is just a ball like all the others trillions upon trillions", which a model that basically says "nope, it's much crazier" would prevent. It's not an uncommon view by any means, by the way, and is a pretty annoying one.
I don't think I've ever heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson articulate that. Unless you have an example of that, it's a bit weird to put quotation marks around something and attribute it to a science communicator.
 

DarkJ

Member
Nov 11, 2017
1,098
It would be cool if they were able to build new concrete models and theories. Especially if changing assumptions lead to new discoveries. Part of me feels like something this grand we will never fully understand as long as we are stuck observing from Earth though.
 

MarcelloF

Member
Dec 9, 2020
7,494
Crazy how many beauticians are into questioning this that them convening would make the news.
 

HStallion

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
62,262
I could have been more specific about what I had in mind, which was Neil DeGrasse Tyson-style "we know things have no meaning and the Earth is just a ball like all the others trillions upon trillions", which a model that basically says "nope, it's much crazier" would prevent. It's not an uncommon view by any means, by the way, and is a pretty annoying one.

I feel like the way people look at the universe and our place in it is so misguided and off kilter. We should be amazed that we are a part of the universe can consider and contemplate itself without getting so caught up in the overall scale of things.
 

Tbm24

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,329
Was just reading about the Big Ring and Giant Arc yesterday. Exciting stuff honestly.
 

Teddy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,290
UCLan, where that PhD student discovered these two super structures, has an article with some nice illustrations on her discoveries.
big-ring-figure-2.xc40606d9.jpg

Puts into perspective how gigantic these structures are: despite being billions of light years away, they would still occupy 20 times the size of the moon on our night sky, if we could see them with the naked eye

Didn't expect my university to be here!

Really exciting study, I've seen a lot of videos on dark matter and it's always seems to be just one experiment away.. And then we can't find it.
 

sfedai0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,978
Read that initially as Cosmetoligists and was super confused on why the heck they would meet on a topic like that.
 

Yerffej

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,609
Whatever the answer is, nothign in my lifetime will actually be able to answer what the hell the universe really is, fundamentally, big picture style, and well.. it is kind of comforting to have these mysteries of our existence.
Actually I've known for some time that each and every galaxy is just a god toot. We are anus dust. I should go to this convention. These bright minds could be put to better use.
 

lunarworks

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,193
Toronto
A lot of it is based on the idea that no matter where you look in the universe the rules of physics and distribution of everything is the same, but that is an assumption that really doesn't need to be true.
I had a minor argument with a science teacher about that during a lesson on string theory. I put forward that perhaps some constants are slightly different in some regions of space, and the thought of that practically offended him.