Doubts about basic assumption for the universe

[C C]

https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/085-2020

RELEASE: No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle. A recent study by the Universities of Bonn and Harvard, however, has thrown this principle into question. Should the measured values be confirmed, this would toss many assumptions about the properties of the universe overboard. The results are published in the journal “Astronomy & Astrophysics”, but are already available online.

Since the big bang, the universe has swollen like a freshly formed raisin roll put in a warm place to rise. Until recently, it was thought that this increase in size was occurring evenly in all directions, as with a good yeast dough. Astrophysicists call this “isotropy”. Many calculations on the fundamental properties of the universe are based on this assumption. It is possible that they are all wrong – or at least, inaccurate – thanks to compelling observations and analyses of the scientists from the Universities of Bonn and Harvard.

For they have put the isotropy hypothesis to the test for the first time with a new method that allows more reliable statements than before. With an unexpected result: According to this method, some areas in space expand faster than they should, while others expand more slowly than expected. “In any case, this conclusion is suggested by our measurements,” states Konstantinos Migkas, from the Argelander Institute for Astronomy at the University of Bonn.

Migkas and his colleagues have developed a new, efficient isotropy test in their study. It is based on the observation of so-called galaxy clusters – in a sense, the raisins in the yeast bun. The clusters emit X-ray radiation that can be collected on Earth (in this case, this was done by the satellite-based telescopes Chandra and XMM-Newton). The temperature of the galaxy clusters can be calculated based on certain characteristics of the radiation. Also, their brightness can be measured. The hotter they are, the brighter they glow.

In an isotropic universe, a simple rule applies. The further away a celestial object is from us, the faster it moves away from us. From its speed, we can therefore deduce its distance from us, regardless of the direction in which the object lies. At least that's what we thought until now. “In reality, however, our brightness measurements seem to disagree with the above distance calculation,” Migkas emphasizes.

This is because the amount of light that reaches the earth decreases with increasing distance. So, anyone who knows the original luminosity of a celestial body and its distance knows how bright it should shine in the telescope image. And it is precisely at this point that scientists have come across discrepancies that are difficult to reconcile with the isotropy hypothesis: that some galaxy clusters are much fainter than expected. Their distance from Earth is probably much greater than calculated from their speed. And for some others, however, the opposite is the case.

“There are only three possible explanations for this,” states Migkas, who is doing his doctorate in the research group of Prof. Dr. Thomas Reiprich at the Argelander Institute. “Firstly, it is possible that the X-ray radiation, whose intensity we have measured, is attenuated on its way from the galaxy clusters to Earth. This could be due to as yet undiscovered gas or dust clouds inside or outside the Milky Way. In preliminary tests, however, we find this discrepancy between measurement and theory not only in X-rays but also at other wavelengths. It is extremely unlikely that any kind of matter nebula absorbs completely different types of radiation in the same way. But we won't know for sure for several months.”

A second possibility are so-called “bulk flows”. These are groups of neighboring galaxy clusters that move continuously in a certain direction – for example, due to some structures in space that generate strong gravitational forces. These would therefore attract the galaxy clusters to themselves and thus change their speed (and thus also their derived distance). “This effect would also mean that many calculations on the properties of the local universe would be imprecise and would have to be repeated,” explains Migkas.

The third possibility is the most serious: What if the universe is not isotropic at all? What if – metaphorically speaking – the yeast in the galactic raisin roll is so unevenly distributed that it quickly bulges in some places while it hardly grows at all in other regions? Such an anisotropy could, for example, result from the properties of the mysterious “dark energy”, which acts as an additional driving force for the expansion of the universe. However, a theory is still missing that would make the behavior of the Dark Energy consistent with the observations. “If we succeed in developing such a theory, it could greatly accelerate the search for the exact nature of this form of energy,” Migkas is certain.

The current study is based on data from more than 800 galaxy clusters, 300 of which were analysed by the authors. The remaining clusters come from previously published studies. The analysis of the X-ray data alone was so demanding that it took several months. The new satellite-based eROSITA X-ray telescope is expected to record several thousand more galaxy clusters in the coming years. At the latest then it will become clear whether the isotropy hypothesis really has to be abandoned.

[stryder]

https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/085-2020

RELEASE: No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle. A recent study by the Universities of Bonn and Harvard, however, has thrown this principle into question. Should the measured values be confirmed, this would toss many assumptions about the properties of the universe overboard. The results are published in the journal “Astronomy & Astrophysics”, but are already available online.

Since the big bang, the universe has swollen like a freshly formed raisin roll put in a warm place to rise. Until recently, it was thought that this increase in size was occurring evenly in all directions, as with a good yeast dough. Astrophysicists call this “isotropy”. Many calculations on the fundamental properties of the universe are based on this assumption. It is possible that they are all wrong – or at least, inaccurate – thanks to compelling observations and analyses of the scientists from the Universities of Bonn and Harvard.

For they have put the isotropy hypothesis to the test for the first time with a new method that allows more reliable statements than before. With an unexpected result: According to this method, some areas in space expand faster than they should, while others expand more slowly than expected. “In any case, this conclusion is suggested by our measurements,” states Konstantinos Migkas, from the Argelander Institute for Astronomy at the University of Bonn.

Migkas and his colleagues have developed a new, efficient isotropy test in their study. It is based on the observation of so-called galaxy clusters – in a sense, the raisins in the yeast bun. The clusters emit X-ray radiation that can be collected on Earth (in this case, this was done by the satellite-based telescopes Chandra and XMM-Newton). The temperature of the galaxy clusters can be calculated based on certain characteristics of the radiation. Also, their brightness can be measured. The hotter they are, the brighter they glow.

In an isotropic universe, a simple rule applies. The further away a celestial object is from us, the faster it moves away from us. From its speed, we can therefore deduce its distance from us, regardless of the direction in which the object lies. At least that's what we thought until now. “In reality, however, our brightness measurements seem to disagree with the above distance calculation,” Migkas emphasizes.

This is because the amount of light that reaches the earth decreases with increasing distance. So, anyone who knows the original luminosity of a celestial body and its distance knows how bright it should shine in the telescope image. And it is precisely at this point that scientists have come across discrepancies that are difficult to reconcile with the isotropy hypothesis: that some galaxy clusters are much fainter than expected. Their distance from Earth is probably much greater than calculated from their speed. And for some others, however, the opposite is the case.

“There are only three possible explanations for this,” states Migkas, who is doing his doctorate in the research group of Prof. Dr. Thomas Reiprich at the Argelander Institute. “Firstly, it is possible that the X-ray radiation, whose intensity we have measured, is attenuated on its way from the galaxy clusters to Earth. This could be due to as yet undiscovered gas or dust clouds inside or outside the Milky Way. In preliminary tests, however, we find this discrepancy between measurement and theory not only in X-rays but also at other wavelengths. It is extremely unlikely that any kind of matter nebula absorbs completely different types of radiation in the same way. But we won't know for sure for several months.”

A second possibility are so-called “bulk flows”. These are groups of neighboring galaxy clusters that move continuously in a certain direction – for example, due to some structures in space that generate strong gravitational forces. These would therefore attract the galaxy clusters to themselves and thus change their speed (and thus also their derived distance). “This effect would also mean that many calculations on the properties of the local universe would be imprecise and would have to be repeated,” explains Migkas.

The third possibility is the most serious: What if the universe is not isotropic at all? What if – metaphorically speaking – the yeast in the galactic raisin roll is so unevenly distributed that it quickly bulges in some places while it hardly grows at all in other regions? Such an anisotropy could, for example, result from the properties of the mysterious “dark energy”, which acts as an additional driving force for the expansion of the universe. However, a theory is still missing that would make the behavior of the Dark Energy consistent with the observations. “If we succeed in developing such a theory, it could greatly accelerate the search for the exact nature of this form of energy,” Migkas is certain.

The current study is based on data from more than 800 galaxy clusters, 300 of which were analysed by the authors. The remaining clusters come from previously published studies. The analysis of the X-ray data alone was so demanding that it took several months. The new satellite-based eROSITA X-ray telescope is expected to record several thousand more galaxy clusters in the coming years. At the latest then it will become clear whether the isotropy hypothesis really has to be abandoned.

In the theoretical model that I pose. Life itself is responsible for "Paradoxes" in the universe due to it's ability to choose where inanimate materials can not. This means as we venture deeper into levels of quantum manipulation not just with our sciences but out every day lives, those paradoxical states protrude out from our epicenter effecting spacetime in it's wake. I guess you can say our "sphere of influence" is likely therefore responsible for our measurements being irregular.

[Syne]

I would say the second possibility is most likely, followed by the first, with the third being a very remote chance.

[Zinjanthropos]

If parts of the universe expand at different rates then would that mean the universe has a boundary? I’m picturing a shape change resembling that of an amoeba on the move.

[Secular Sanity]

Or maybe there’s a fourth possibility. 

The Malmquist Bias.

[confused2]

Galaxy's cluster together into clusters and clusters cluster into super-clusters - so why not (waves arms) dark energy also clusters or (in a darkly energetic way) unclusters?
Conceptually (for me) a bit difficult to see how one bit of space can get bigger faster than another. Wouldn't the things at the edge of the faster expanding space run into the things coming the other way from the slower expanding space in a region of we don't know what sort of expanding we're doing at this particular point? Or something?

[Catastrophe]

https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/085-2020

RELEASE: No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle. A recent study by the Universities of Bonn and Harvard, however, has thrown this principle into question. Should the measured values be confirmed, this would toss many assumptions about the properties of the universe overboard. The results are published in the journal “Astronomy & Astrophysics”, but are already available online.

Since the big bang, the universe has swollen like a freshly formed raisin roll put in a warm place to rise. Until recently, it was thought that this increase in size was occurring evenly in all directions, as with a good yeast dough. Astrophysicists call this “isotropy”. Many calculations on the fundamental properties of the universe are based on this assumption. It is possible that they are all wrong – or at least, inaccurate – thanks to compelling observations and analyses of the scientists from the Universities of Bonn and Harvard.

For they have put the isotropy hypothesis to the test for the first time with a new method that allows more reliable statements than before. With an unexpected result: According to this method, some areas in space expand faster than they should, while others expand more slowly than expected. “In any case, this conclusion is suggested by our measurements,” states Konstantinos Migkas, from the Argelander Institute for Astronomy at the University of Bonn.

Migkas and his colleagues have developed a new, efficient isotropy test in their study. It is based on the observation of so-called galaxy clusters – in a sense, the raisins in the yeast bun. The clusters emit X-ray radiation that can be collected on Earth (in this case, this was done by the satellite-based telescopes Chandra and XMM-Newton). The temperature of the galaxy clusters can be calculated based on certain characteristics of the radiation. Also, their brightness can be measured. The hotter they are, the brighter they glow.

In an isotropic universe, a simple rule applies. The further away a celestial object is from us, the faster it moves away from us. From its speed, we can therefore deduce its distance from us, regardless of the direction in which the object lies. At least that's what we thought until now. “In reality, however, our brightness measurements seem to disagree with the above distance calculation,” Migkas emphasizes.

This is because the amount of light that reaches the earth decreases with increasing distance. So, anyone who knows the original luminosity of a celestial body and its distance knows how bright it should shine in the telescope image. And it is precisely at this point that scientists have come across discrepancies that are difficult to reconcile with the isotropy hypothesis: that some galaxy clusters are much fainter than expected. Their distance from Earth is probably much greater than calculated from their speed. And for some others, however, the opposite is the case.

“There are only three possible explanations for this,” states Migkas, who is doing his doctorate in the research group of Prof. Dr. Thomas Reiprich at the Argelander Institute. “Firstly, it is possible that the X-ray radiation, whose intensity we have measured, is attenuated on its way from the galaxy clusters to Earth. This could be due to as yet undiscovered gas or dust clouds inside or outside the Milky Way. In preliminary tests, however, we find this discrepancy between measurement and theory not only in X-rays but also at other wavelengths. It is extremely unlikely that any kind of matter nebula absorbs completely different types of radiation in the same way. But we won't know for sure for several months.”

A second possibility are so-called “bulk flows”. These are groups of neighboring galaxy clusters that move continuously in a certain direction – for example, due to some structures in space that generate strong gravitational forces. These would therefore attract the galaxy clusters to themselves and thus change their speed (and thus also their derived distance). “This effect would also mean that many calculations on the properties of the local universe would be imprecise and would have to be repeated,” explains Migkas.

The third possibility is the most serious: What if the universe is not isotropic at all? What if – metaphorically speaking – the yeast in the galactic raisin roll is so unevenly distributed that it quickly bulges in some places while it hardly grows at all in other regions? Such an anisotropy could, for example, result from the properties of the mysterious “dark energy”, which acts as an additional driving force for the expansion of the universe. However, a theory is still missing that would make the behavior of the Dark Energy consistent with the observations. “If we succeed in developing such a theory, it could greatly accelerate the search for the exact nature of this form of energy,” Migkas is certain.

The current study is based on data from more than 800 galaxy clusters, 300 of which were analysed by the authors. The remaining clusters come from previously published studies. The analysis of the X-ray data alone was so demanding that it took several months. The new satellite-based eROSITA X-ray telescope is expected to record several thousand more galaxy clusters in the coming years. At the latest then it will become clear whether the isotropy hypothesis really has to be abandoned.

In the theoretical model that I pose.  Life itself is responsible for "Paradoxes" in the universe due to it's ability to choose where inanimate materials can not.  This means as we venture deeper into levels of quantum manipulation not just with our sciences but out every day lives, those paradoxical states protrude out from our epicenter effecting spacetime in it's wake.  I guess you can say our "sphere of influence" is likely therefore responsible for our measurements being irregular.

[C C]

"No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle."

Why should we think that our observations over a tiny time period over a minute part of just one galaxy should apply everywhere? Is this not anthropomorphism gone mad?

Welcome back, Catastrophe.

Arguably not much choice for humans, since a bias for seeking and abstracting general principles, wide-ranging values, and concepts at least universally applicable to the specific area of interest seems inherent for understanding and (potentially) manipulating/exploiting the latter (or most things). The degree of success of whatever _X_ approach and its regulating ideas is usually waved around as signifying that investigators and inference-makers are possibly discerning something either pervasive or "objective" rather than projecting their predilections into the world.

But OTOH, artificial intelligence or the contemporary "machine-learning" aspects of it instead produce impressive results from finding correlations in large-scale data collections and via trial and error -- that is, without such managing background tools and global rules and ideas of human researchers: AI succeeds without need of understanding, theory, causation, views about being, etc.

So maybe a different path or alien route is possible or optional. Time will tell.

[Catastrophe]

"No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle."

Why should we think that our observations over a tiny time period over a minute part of just one galaxy should apply everywhere? Is this not anthropomorphism gone mad?

Welcome back, Catastrophe.

Arguably not much choice for humans, since a bias for seeking and abstracting general principles, wide-ranging values, and concepts at least universally applicable to the specific area of interest seems inherent for understanding and (potentially) manipulating/exploiting the latter (or most things). The degree of success of whatever _X_ approach and its regulating ideas is usually waved around as signifying that investigators and inference-makers are possibly discerning something either pervasive or "objective" rather than projecting their predilections into the world.

But OTOH, artificial intelligence or the contemporary "machine-learning" aspects of it instead produce impressive results from finding correlations in large-scale data collections and via trial and error -- that is, without such managing background tools and global rules and ideas of human researchers: AI succeeds without need of understanding, theory, causation, views about being, etc.

So maybe a different path or alien route is possible or optional. Time will tell.

[C C]

Thank you for that extensive reply. Before continuing, may I check that I am typing in the right place. I cannot get rid of the bold.'

You're typing inside an opening quote tag after the "equals" sign -- that's where the bold is coming from. You need to place your message outside of all the opening and closing quote tags as well as avoiding the content between them. Instead of replying at the the top, just go to the very bottom of the quoted text and well beyond the last of that BB-code stuff (to stay clear of it).

Or use the "Quick Reply" box at the bottom of a thread until you get accustomed to things. It won't automatically quote what you're responding to, but for the time being people can still figure it out.

You're not the first in here to have problems like that. You'll get the hang of it.