Another problem with the standard model is attributing the cosmological redshift to the Doppler effect.
New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
11–20 of 109 posts
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#12(1/H * c) = (1/α * ke^2 / (electron mass * c^2)) *
(h / (proton mass * c * pi/2)) / (2G * proton mass / c^2)
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#13> It increasingly looks like we live in a region in the universe that happens to have a significantly lower density than the average in the visible universe. This area of underdensity which we live in has been called the “local hole”
that sounds really weird, if the cosmological principle is invalidated, does that mean that we have to reject the Copernican principle as well? the text seems to imply that there is something "special" about our location in the universe.
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#14> It increasingly looks like we live in a region in the universe that happens to have a significantly lower density than the average in the visible universe. This area of underdensity which we live in has been called the “local hole” that sounds really weird, if the cosmological principle is invalidated, does that mean that we have to reject the Copernican principle as well? the text seems to imply that there is some…
No I don't think it's like that. We know that matter and vacuum clump together at a series of increasing scales: the solar system, our galaxy, the local cluster, some surrounding supercluster, maybe there is a superdupercluster level after that, but the theory being disputed is that the hierarchical clustering stops after those N levels, and after that, the superduperclusters (or whatever) are distributed randomly instead of grouping into even more enormous structures. The idea is that the universe started as a random fluctuation and that the clusters etc. came from a diffusion process, like stripes on a zebra. The stripes are locally correlated, but less so over longer distances.
Sabine H is saying that the clustering goes further than the theory can account for, and that the "local hole" is a feature of this bigger structure, not that it's something special.
Anyway, even if our part of the universe is special, there can be an anthropic explanation, like saying we live on the special part of the Earth that has a habitable climate and is not covered with water.
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#15> It increasingly looks like we live in a region in the universe that happens to have a significantly lower density than the average in the visible universe. This area of underdensity which we live in has been called the “local hole” that sounds really weird, if the cosmological principle is invalidated, does that mean that we have to reject the Copernican principle as well? the text seems to imply that there is some…
> the text seems to imply that there is something "special" about our location in the universe.
The counterpoint to the Copernican principle is the anthropic principle: we can only find ourselves in places which support the existence of beings like us.
I have no idea if the density variation even might be important for chances of industrial intelligence, but people have suggested galactic (not just stellar) Goldilocks zones as one requirement (and separately “having a very large moon”), so I also wouldn’t automatically dismiss anyone who said it was important.
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#16> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. Is this a case of science advancing one funeral at a time? We have to wait for the dark energ…
That would be true if young scientists wouldn’t continuously make successful predictions based on cosmological principle among other observable effects of the general relativity and standard model.
Make observable prediction, coherent thesis, then we’ll talk. Of course our models are not perfect, but it is best we have. Physics so far never dealt in “fundamental truths”, just good enough models. So far, this is best we got.
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#17Another problem with the standard model is attributing the cosmological redshift to the Doppler effect.
could you pls elaborate on that?
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#18Not knowing much about the subject: cosmological principle appears to say that laws of physics are uniform in space. Then, with known matter and forces, this leads to some structure, with fluctuations, and hence some scale over which matter is uniformly distributed. If we calculate such a scale and find matter is still not uniform at that scale, wouldn’t the first conclusion be that there are missing terms in either…
> the c10l principle
Don't do this. It is bad enough that every major devops/infra component needs to create some tag, but dropping it in to random places is worse than the regular backronyms and cute project names science and tech people use to try to hide complexity. It just adds confusion for no rhyme or reason other than trying to sound like you are a part of some club of insiders.
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#19Any time dissenting physics/astronomy opinions show up on here, it's always Sabine Hossenfelder. Is she a lone wolf or the face of a larger community?
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#20Not knowing much about the subject: cosmological principle appears to say that laws of physics are uniform in space. Then, with known matter and forces, this leads to some structure, with fluctuations, and hence some scale over which matter is uniformly distributed. If we calculate such a scale and find matter is still not uniform at that scale, wouldn’t the first conclusion be that there are missing terms in either…
> the c10l principle Don't do this. It is bad enough that every major devops/infra component needs to create some tag, but dropping it in to random places is worse than the regular backronyms and cute project names science and tech people use to try to hide complexity. It just adds confusion for no rhyme or reason other than trying to sound like you are a part of some club of insiders.
You see it everywhere really. Military and politicians and government orgs all do it to embarrassing lengths too