Just had a quick read of this but it looks very interesting. Thanks for spotting and posting, Brian.
I noticed this line: “This is exactly what we would expect with if the universe is (on average) flat. If the universe had some overall curvature, it would appear in the CMB as an asymmetry in the overall temperature.”
Which made me wonder: I recall many years ago being told that Einsten said the universe was limitless, but round. If you fired a laser beam straight ahead, eventually it would come round and hit you in the back. So the idea that a ‘flat universe’ has been demonstrated (so far) by the CMB seems to be at odds with what I thought Dr E said. And now new evidence is suggesting that that was right?
Am I remembering Einstein’s idea correctly? Or did this idea of Einstein’s come from his period when he believed in a ‘cosmological constant’ that he had to invent because it hadn’t occurred to him that the universe was expanding?
So many questions, so many incomprehensible answers! 😉
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFIQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcsep10.phys.utk.edu%2Fastr162%2Flect%2Fcosmology%2Fgeometry.html&ei=FtwjVOTwJ5Xcaoq_gogN&usg=AFQjCNGbfWX8bQDV777TrOeMW7zcyP49eQ&sig2=-6Ig7s1Dhzq4-OHVIHKafA . Hope these help?
Hope these help?
They look great, Brian. Thank you. I’ll read those later today but they look like they’re bang on target!
I love these teasingly uncertain anomalies that are not verified with enough data. It fuels my imagination and more importantly the those of the theoretical physicists, you know the ones who are not taken seriously amongst the steadfast authorities on the current cosmological model 🙂
I dont take the view that we should “wait” for more data (as the writer of that article takes), in order to theorise other probabilities. Its nice and I think constructive to have theorists think out of the box upon these sort of the unverified anomalies regardless of whether they are barking up the wrong galactic tree or not. It does no harm and if just one happens to be going in the right direction even if still flawed then the scientific community will have gained some head start on re-modelling the cosmos. That’s my thought. I admire theoretical physicists because they are sometimes a bit ridiculed but still persevere and if they idea turned out to be totally wack, I still admire them for trying and persisting until proven wrong. Its never a waste. It was never a waste of Einstein’s time when he tried to find the theory of everything without believing in the quantum mechanics.
So in this case, the irregularities in the CMB data has led to all sorts of exotic theories. Does that also include the “Dark Flow”? Multiverses in which another universe’s influence maybe the cause of the temperature irregularity in certain areas. Or some super massive dark matter lurking around, or the entire cosmos being a series of “branes” or wavy plates , stacked in wafer like formation so when two plates touch, a big bang occurs resulting in a universe. Or the theory that we are on a turtle’s back riding on an elephant…no wait…that’s not right.
Thanks for all the links Brian. I read the main article but not the shape of the universe links you gave Andy, I’ll also read those later.