Holes in Big Bang

[Wowbagger]

The term "better" seems rather subjective from where I sit.

By "better", I mean: Better able to make more precise predictions, while taking into account everything else observed, so far.

I don't really see how anything has actually been 'solved' by introducing an imaginary force.

It's not "imaginary" if it has empirical implications, that can be independently observed.

It's a speculative "solution" at best and it's does nothing to explain solar wind, coronal loops, etc.

All scientific models are considered provisional. Why does Inflation deserve to be called out, for this, especially?

Solar winds and coronal loops hardly contradict its findings.

 

[Singularitarian]

I have a theory.

The hole could have been created from a very early explosion between matter and antimatter.

 

[Reality Check]

Singularitarian does not seem to know how to find actual scientific papers on this topic so I will cite the preprint about the CMB cold spot being related to a reduction in the density of galaxies:
Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot

We detect a dip of 20-45% in the surface brightness and number counts of NVSS sources smoothed to a few degrees at the location of the WMAP cold spot. The dip has structure on scales of approximately 1-10 degrees. Together with independent all-sky wavelet analyses, our results suggest that the dip in extragalactic brightness and number counts and the WMAP cold spot are physically related, i.e., that the coincidence is neither a statistical anomaly nor a WMAP foreground correction problem. If the cold spot does originate from structures at modest redshifts, as we suggest, then there is no remaining need for non-Gaussian processes at the last scattering surface of the CMB to explain the cold spot. The late integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, already seen statistically for NVSS source counts, can now be seen to operate on a single region. To create the magnitude and angular size of the WMAP cold spot requires a ~140 Mpc radius completely empty void at z<=1 along this line of sight. This is far outside the current expectations of the concordance cosmology, and adds to the anomalies seen in the CMB.

(This is also referenced at the end of Cramer's article)

The Wikipedia article has two more recent papers about this (one supporting the hypothesis, the other not supporting it).

 

[Mr.D]

You even didn't know about the double 360 spin required.

Of course I did.

I'm the one trying to explain it to you. Care to finish the lesson?

ETA: Are you intending to pursue graduate work in physics?

 

[Dancing David]

It's the size in question, for its obsurd from the standard model. It surely is not predicted for this magnitude, given the accurate time-scale in which inflation is required. That is why.

That is your assertion, why is it too large? Are you sure, where is your math and numbers?

 

[Michael Mozina]

By "better", I mean: Better able to make more precise predictions, while taking into account everything else observed, so far.

But those "dark flows" demonstrate that inflation is not particularly 'precise' at making any specific predictions.

It's not "imaginary" if it has empirical implications, that can be independently observed.

The notion of "independent" is rather up for interpretation. For instance, *OUTSIDE* of astronomy, inflation has not specific purpose or verification. Compare and contrast that with say 'current flow' that has been independently verified across many branches of science.

All scientific models are considered provisional. Why does Inflation deserve to be called out, for this, especially?

Because those dark flows blow it out of the water for one. For another, it has no useful application in any other branch of science. What good is it if it can't produce useful actual "predictions' in the one theory that requires it?

Solar winds and coronal loops hardly contradict its findings.

These things however are "predictions" (real empirical predictions) of EU theory. Furthermore the metaphysical bad boys of contemporary theory do nothing in terms of predicting these events. Why then is standard BB theory 'better' in any tangible or useful way?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is your assertion, why is it too large? Are you sure, where is your math and numbers?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf

How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM?

Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot.

 

[Reality Check]

You missed out the next sentence:

One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.​

IMO: The paper is interesting and certainly raises a question about the density fluctuation in the early universe (i.e. the result of the inflationary part of the concordance cosmology).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Did you? I must have missed those papers and references.

FYI, these references were actually posted at the bottom of the first link in this thread. I missed them at first too however.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw141.html

References

The WMAP Cold Spot:

“Detection of non-Gaussian Spot in WMAP”, M. Cruz, E. Martinez-Gonzalez, P. Vielva, and L. Cayon, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 356 29-40 (2005), available online at http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405341v2.pdf

“ExtragalacticRadio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot”, L. Rudnick, S. Brown, and L. R. Williams; Astrophysics Journal (2007, to be published); available online at http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0908

“Probing dark energy with steerable wavelets through correlation of WMAP and NVSS local morphological measures”, J. D. McEwen, Y. Wiaux, M. P. Hobson, P. Vandergheynst, and A. N. Lasenby, 2007, submitted to Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., available online at http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0626v1.pdf .

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Coming late to this...

From Singu's first link;

" As photons of light fall into the gravity well of a massive object like a galactic cluster, they gain energy and are blue-shifted.* On emerging from the gravity well, such photons would lose the energy gained, except that, due to the accelerated expansion effect of the large quantity of dark energy in the universe, there is a net repulsion acting and it is a bit easier to get out of the gravity well, so that not all of the gained energy is removed.* The net result is that CMP photons that pass through regions containing significant mass arrive at our detectors with a bit more energy on the average than those passing through regions of the universe that are relatively empty.* Therefore, the CMB radiation should appear cooler along a line of sight passing through a large “empty” region."

Can someone explain why this generates a cold spot not a hot spot given that the described mechanism suggests that the photons arrive with more not less energy.

 

[Singularitarian]

Of course I did.

I'm the one trying to explain it to you. Care to finish the lesson?

ETA: Are you intending to pursue graduate work in physics?

Oh no you did not. Nothing in your attutitude seemed to imply anything of the sort. All i had was you stating you had a PhD, as though i was just going receed. Sir, your attitude on that sub-forum included you going to nominate a specific passage in which you said the 720 degree spin was an error i made. Then when i challenged you on it, you said the article was out of date.

Get real. And if you have a PhD good for you - start using it.

 

[Singularitarian]

Singularitarian does not seem to know how to find actual scientific papers on this topic so I will cite the preprint about the CMB cold spot being related to a reduction in the density of galaxies:
Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot

(This is also referenced at the end of Cramer's article)

The Wikipedia article has two more recent papers about this (one supporting the hypothesis, the other not supporting it).

It's not that i can't in practice. It's just that i don't hold any. I have well over 100 scientific papers. All of them are dedicated to quantum physics, and not one of them wholey on cosmology. But is this any surprise? I am not a cosmologist.

 

[Singularitarian]

That is your assertion, why is it too large? Are you sure, where is your math and numbers?

My assertion based on scientific fact. Besides, someone else showed i was correct, Micheal, so your question has been answered.

 

[AWPrime]

I have a theory.

The hole could have been created from a very early explosion between matter and antimatter.

How?

 

[Singularitarian]

How?

Until the 1950's, the view was that the laws of quantum physics remained absolutely unchanged when one changes the sign of spatial coordinates, such as x, y, z into -x, -y and -z; this particular mirror structure is called the parity, symbolized with P. However, C.S. Wu realized that the left-handed neutrino had no mirror reflection, (the left-handed neutrino), thus the symmetry of 'weak interaction' was violated through the parity; the symmetry could only be revived, if one considered that P could not be alone, and one must introduce the invariant of CP into the equation, hence, the CP Violation. 'C' stands for 'charge conjugate', which is the transformation of a particle into its antipartner, such as an electron into a positron. In Wu's case, a left-handed neutrino can be transformed into a right-handed antineutrino.

In 1964, physicists James Cronin and Val Vitch found a symmetry violation in the CP transformation, in observations on the K-meson, or ''Kaon'' particle. In short, they showed that the Antikaon is not the absolute mirror symmetry of the neutral Kaon. The Antikaon was shown to have a smaller life expectancy than its neutral partner. They received a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Though given as an appropriate mechanism to account for why half the particles in the universe are not antinatured, there should still be large amounts of antiparticles due to the standard model.

 

[Reality Check]

My assertion based on scientific fact. Besides, someone else showed i was correct, Micheal, so your question has been answered.

Not quite scientific fact since the existence of the superviod is not even confirmed yet. The Wikipedia article has two more recent papers about this (one supporting the hypothesis, the other not supporting it).
A single analysis not make a scientific fact. A body of analysis that consistantly supports the hypothesis will make the supervoid into a scientific fact.

Note the last sentence that Micheal forgot to include from the paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...704.0908v2.pdf

How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM?

Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot. One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.

In other words the authors are stating that if the observational and numerical void probability studies that have been done up to ~30 Mpc can be extrapolated to > 100 Mpc then the probability of such a large void is small.

 

[Singularitarian]

Not quite scientific fact since the existence of the superviod is not even confirmed yet. The Wikipedia article has two more recent papers about this (one supporting the hypothesis, the other not supporting it).
A single analysis not make a scientific fact. A body of analysis that consistantly supports the hypothesis will make the supervoid into a scientific fact.

Note the last sentence that Micheal forgot to include from the paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...704.0908v2.pdf

In other words the authors are stating that if the observational and numerical void probability studies that have been done up to ~30 Mpc can be extrapolated to > 100 Mpc then the probability of such a large void is small.

Then it requires more followers. Some say it is confirmed, others not. One of the latter guys was a friend of mine who even went to the observatory upon hearing the news.

 

[AWPrime]

Until the 1950's, the view was that the laws of quantum physics remained absolutely unchanged when one changes the sign of spatial coordinates, such as x, y, z into -x, -y and -z; this particular mirror structure is called the parity, symbolized with P. However, C.S. Wu realized that the left-handed neutrino had no mirror reflection, (the left-handed neutrino), thus the symmetry of 'weak interaction' was violated through the parity; the symmetry could only be revived, if one considered that P could not be alone, and one must introduce the invariant of CP into the equation, hence, the CP Violation. 'C' stands for 'charge conjugate', which is the transformation of a particle into its antipartner, such as an electron into a positron. In Wu's case, a left-handed neutrino can be transformed into a right-handed antineutrino.

In 1964, physicists James Cronin and Val Vitch found a symmetry violation in the CP transformation, in observations on the K-meson, or ''Kaon'' particle. In short, they showed that the Antikaon is not the absolute mirror symmetry of the neutral Kaon. The Antikaon was shown to have a smaller life expectancy than its neutral partner. They received a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Though given as an appropriate mechanism to account for why half the particles in the universe are not antinatured, there should still be large amounts of antiparticles due to the standard model.

Not really the answer that I was looking, because in a still homogeneous universe, where would there be concentrations of antimatter?

Isn't more likely that after Planck time that random interactions (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) butterflied the current differences?

 

[Piggy]

The big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing, and since the big bang encompasses everything, then inflation is truely everything as well.

But Big Bang doesn't fail if any inflationary model fails.

The BB model wasn't founded on inflation.

The reasons for the BB model haven't changed. They're still out there.

If we discover that an explanatory model within that framework fails, it doesn't bring down the framework unless it also exposes fatal problems with the framework itself.

Take evolution, for example. We now have the modern synthesis rather than original Darwinian theory, but nothing that was dropped from the original theory was fatal to the overall Natural Selection framework.

 

[~enigma~]

I have well over 100 scientific papers. All of them are dedicated to quantum physics

And how many dedicated to singularitarianism?