Ultra-Large Structure Discovered In Distant Space Challenges Cosmological Principle (scitechdaily.com) 60
"The discovery of a second ultra-large structure in the remote universe has further challenged some of the basic assumptions about cosmology," writes SciTechDaily:
The Big Ring on the Sky is 9.2 billion light-years from Earth. It has a diameter of about 1.3 billion light-years, and a circumference of about four billion light-years. If we could step outside and see it directly, the diameter of the Big Ring would need about 15 full Moons to cover it.
It is the second ultra-large structure discovered by University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) PhD student Alexia Lopez who, two years ago, also discovered the Giant Arc on the Sky. Remarkably, the Big Ring and the Giant Arc, which is 3.3 billion light-years across, are in the same cosmological neighborhood — they are seen at the same distance, at the same cosmic time, and are only 12 degrees apart on the sky. Alexia said: "Neither of these two ultra-large structures is easy to explain in our current understanding of the universe. And their ultra-large sizes, distinctive shapes, and cosmological proximity must surely be telling us something important — but what exactly?
"One possibility is that the Big Ring could be related to Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations (BAOs). BAOs arise from oscillations in the early universe and today should appear, statistically at least, as spherical shells in the arrangement of galaxies. However, detailed analysis of the Big Ring revealed it is not really compatible with the BAO explanation: the Big Ring is too large and is not spherical." Other explanations might be needed, explanations that depart from what is generally considered to be the standard understanding in cosmology...
And if the Big Ring and the Giant Arc together form a still larger structure then the challenge to the Cosmological Principle becomes even more compelling... Alexia said, "From current cosmological theories we didn't think structures on this scale were possible. "
Possible explanations include a Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, or the effect of cosmic strings passing through...
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.
It is the second ultra-large structure discovered by University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) PhD student Alexia Lopez who, two years ago, also discovered the Giant Arc on the Sky. Remarkably, the Big Ring and the Giant Arc, which is 3.3 billion light-years across, are in the same cosmological neighborhood — they are seen at the same distance, at the same cosmic time, and are only 12 degrees apart on the sky. Alexia said: "Neither of these two ultra-large structures is easy to explain in our current understanding of the universe. And their ultra-large sizes, distinctive shapes, and cosmological proximity must surely be telling us something important — but what exactly?
"One possibility is that the Big Ring could be related to Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations (BAOs). BAOs arise from oscillations in the early universe and today should appear, statistically at least, as spherical shells in the arrangement of galaxies. However, detailed analysis of the Big Ring revealed it is not really compatible with the BAO explanation: the Big Ring is too large and is not spherical." Other explanations might be needed, explanations that depart from what is generally considered to be the standard understanding in cosmology...
And if the Big Ring and the Giant Arc together form a still larger structure then the challenge to the Cosmological Principle becomes even more compelling... Alexia said, "From current cosmological theories we didn't think structures on this scale were possible. "
Possible explanations include a Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, or the effect of cosmic strings passing through...
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.
Larry Niven was prescient (Score:2)
Re:Larry Niven was prescient (Score:4, Insightful)
Those structures are far too large to be Ringwords. It's Stephen Baxter's Xeelee building cosmic megastructures to escape to a different universe.
Get Dr. Rajesh Koothrappali on the phone! (Score:1)
Until Raj runs the raw data by Dr. Sheldon Cooper to check for any patterns or anomalies, I cannot form an opinion on the matter.
Re: Larry Niven was prescient (Score:2)
Larry Niven was always really great when he collaborated with Jerry Pournelle.
It's too bad he never got around to writing that story with Frank Herbert...
humans always think we are at the center. (Score:1)
And yet fractal cosmology and the "self-similar-cosmological-model" predicts exactly this. Order and form at all scales, big and small. no largest, or smallest. only scale.
Current theories are human-scale centric. Why should our scale be the only important one?
Re:humans always think we are at the center. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a lot wrong with your post.
We are the centre... and so is everything else.
The scales involved are not human. They're the scales at which masses would no longer (according to current theory) have been able to have gravitational interactions due to the limit of c and thus should not have formed coherent structures. After the instant of the Big Bang, distance and time were things and every point had a cosmic event horizon just as is the case now.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you're talking about some kind of fusion of electric universe theory and fractal universe theory? Absolutely not.
Both are firmly in the 'garbage' category of theories that only exist because people on the Internet liked a synopsis and have zero interest in a 30-second search to read why they are not consistent with observation.
You don't even need a PhD and a career in astrophysics. The explanations are pretty simple... mainly, the electric universe theory doesn't support the existence of the Sun.
Re: (Score:1)
How come I see bands in rocks that are as small as pebbles and as large as kilometer-scale mountains (and even asteroids like Ultima Thule)?
Why can't the sun be like a proton or neutron? Do you need gravity to explain atoms?
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't the sun be like a proton or neutron?
Not dense enough by far.
Re: (Score:1)
See the emotional outburst from a labile thientitht who's feeling a little bit butthurt, kids?
Re: (Score:2)
"We are the centre... and so is everything else."
This annoys the crap out of me. Look, I know what it's getting at, and you could make the same argument using an inflating balloon - and it would be accurate, but it's not *useful*, it's just pedantic as hell.
If you measured the speeds and trajectories of every visible galaxy and drew lines backward along them, then barring a rare weirdo or three where something unanticipated happened in the history of that galaxy's travel, those lines would all intersect at
Re: (Score:2)
Just for a laugh, can you give me a handful of buzzwords that any serious study of "fractal order" and "form cosmology" or whatever it is you're selling, would use. It might be entertaining to see how much work has been published in your field.
No, I'm not going to search YouTube. Just the written word.
Re: (Score:1)
"The phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave, when traveling through a medium, can routinely exceed c, the vacuum velocity of light. For example, this occurs in most glasses at X-ray frequencies."
Re: (Score:1)
"The phase velocity is the speed at which the crests of the wave move and can be faster than the speed of light in vacuum, and thereby give a refractive index below 1. [...] An example of a plasma with an index of refraction less than unity is Earth's ionosphere. Since the refractive index of the ionosphere (a plasma), is less than unity, electromagnetic waves propagating through the plasma are bent "away from the normal" (see Geometric optics) allowing the radio wave to be refracted back toward earth, thus
Re: (Score:2)
The OP is probably discussing a third-hand re-telling of this https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm already classifying them as "all the intellectual rigour of Young Earth Creationists, but without having put in the hard work to try to make their idea hang together when swinging in the breeze, oscillating merrily".
Re: (Score:2)
In their defense, ability to appreciate ideas like this one requires at least an undergrad degree in physics, which is four years of hard and largely thankless work.
It is sad that the ability to explain these ideas in a simple way isn't usually a part of the curriculum, but then developing this ability is probably harder than the degree :)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be part of the PGCE (Post-Graduate Certificate in Education), which is TTBOMK about the minimum entry level for education beyond the potty-training stages. But I'll admit I haven't ever looked properly at the question, having never considered a career in teaching, let alone teaching sub-adults.
Teaching [something] is a different skill set to doing [samething]. Different training course, diffe
Cosmological Principle (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is real evidence for it, the evidence is called "cosmic microwave background" and it is, indeed, very uniform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Care to explain any of that word salad or are you just running off at the fingers?
Re: Cosmological Principle (Score:2)
Noshellswill isnâ(TM)t nonsense, though poor grammar. If matter can form stable structures at any scale, it poses math problems for entropy always net increasing. Local increases in entropy can happen, but universally, the entropy accumulates somewhere. But that implies some scale at which structure is impossible. If no such limit exists, math says the laws of thermodynamics are wrong somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Inflation should be suspect merely on the grounds that its adherents are physics salesmen; the same goes for the physics described in String Theory (not the mathematics though, that part is rock solid). Just because some measurements follow some mathematics does not imply the metaphysics read into the mathematics from the salesmen is actually part of the physics of the universe. In Time Reborn, Lee Smolin, there are alternatives to inflation. Roger Penrose has his own theory.
So many questions (Score:2)
Giant Arc? Big Ring? Couldn't think of any better names?
Was the Big Ring not big enough to be called giant, too?
I know these are just placeholder names for things that only exist statistically, but really...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have a little poetry. How about the Celestial Crown? These astronomers really have no clue how to get funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Since most funding sources are many-times oversubscribed, I think it's safe to bet that all astronomers know, perforce, how to appeal to the sensibilities of funding allocation committees - which are a branch of bureaucracy notoriously devoid of romance, poetry or even good taste.
By chance I was watching an astrophysics podcast yesterday where the presenter (a working astrophysicist) lamented that the ground-based telescope used in [the study under d
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't they think of better matches? I mean... One can easily see at least 5 rings, more than 10 rectangles, bells, a heart and even that weird sum symbol from Leibniz. I can't imagine what neat stories would we have if ancient Greeks had better instruments.
https://imgur.com/a/Z78SjTx [imgur.com]
Ancient aliens (Score:2)
What else could it be?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a garbage pod.
Re: Ancient aliens (Score:2)
A smegging garbage pod!
Abaddon's Gate ? (Score:2)
Or is it supposed to be closer?
we're in a computer simulation (Score:2)
The full symbol is now: CO2
They are laughing at us for our inability to tackle the climate crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap science reporting (Score:3)
The article leads with an "artists conception" that's literally a giant silvery wedding-band structure - which obviously is NOTHING like what they're actually describing.
Visual bullshit clickbait. The editors should be ashamed.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the "image" of the "ark". Let me know if it confers anything more or less to you than the pic in TFA. Assuming you can see an ark :)
https://www.uclan.ac.uk/image-... [uclan.ac.uk]
Re: Crap science reporting (Score:3)
The Ark is blindingly obvious. Right smack in the center of the picture there's even a little house in the middle.
All snark aside when I see stuff like this I remind myself that the human mind is a pattern recognition machine. We are very good at picking out patterns whether they exist or not.
When I was a kid I used to stare at the static on the TV screen when it was tuned to a channel it wasn't there. After just a few seconds-- far less than a minute-- I would start to see shapes in the noise.
I expect p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every pubescent boy in the early days of cable and scrambled HBO that his damn parents wouldn't pay for, was able to 'discern' ...enough... of images from what was nearly pure static.
Or so I've heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The way it is done, afaik is, by plotting spots blotted out by faint galaxies from the quasar backgrounds. I presume they have something that would represent a field resulting from a uniformly distributed field and they run tests to see how different the two distributions are. So, the end result isn't a picture, but some coordinates with statistically significant differences. The patterns on the picture are what may prompt you to test, though. Like you said, people's eyes are good at spotting patterns, stat
Complex Explanation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out, they actually do fit within the scales of that theory, and indeed are far from the only, or even the largest such structures found. That honour (currently) goes to the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, which is around 10 billion light years in length - over three times the size of these. Ther
Re: (Score:2)
That's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology if you are trying to channel Roger Penrose. And I believe the scale is different for the ring structure to be the echo of a gravity waves from a black hole due to a pre-existing universe from ours.
Louis Wu to the rescue (Score:2)
Send him to investigate.
First a thing; and then another ring; (Score:1)
Maybe ... (Score:2)
... we just don't know as much as we think we know.
We mostly try to make sense of electromagnetic radiation just falling on us. Our stories are just as much "just so" stories as older stories.