If it is real, the Giant Arc would join a growing group of large-scale structures in the universe that, taken together, would break the standard model of cosmology. This model assumes that when you look at large enough volumes of space — above about 1 billion light-years — matter is distributed evenly. The Giant Arc appears about three times as long as that theoretical threshold. It joins other structures with similarly superlative names, like the Sloan Great Wall, the Giant Gamma-Ray Burst Ring and the Huge Large Quasar Group.
Lisa Grossman, “An arc of galaxies 3 billion light-years long may challenge cosmology” at ScienceNews (June 10, 2021)
The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists since the 1930s have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the universe is found to be made from a few basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces. Our best understanding of how these particles and three of the forces are related to each other is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particle physics. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained almost all experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena. Over time and through many experiments, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory. – CERN
Meanwhile:
Standard Model: “Our reliance on hypothetical dark matter is an embarrassment; a laboratory detection would be exceedingly welcome.” – CalTech
Hmmm. Watch this file.
Theories are not perfect, but based on what is observed and can be replicated. When information arises to challenge a given theory, the theory must be questioned. If evidence disproves the theory, such as Big Bang, the theory must be dismissed. People want to treat Big Bang as if it is a fundamental law of physics, rather than a theory.
And this is not the first thing to come along that “threatens” to break the standard model. The standard model was born in good faith but rapidly acquired so many ad hoc additions to explain unexpected observations as to become untenable, ie broken. It’s way past time to rethink all our observations (fine tuning) and lack of observations (anti matter, I’m looking at you) and put forward something reasonable.
Might want to start with the first person witness account in a certain book and work from there. After all are you really doing science if you purposely ignore the obvious because it makes you uncomfortable?
An assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale is a simplifying assumption. Reality is different. One gets the impression that physicists would be delighted to have on opportunity to work on new physics outside the standard model. Would that Darwinists had a similar attitude when faced with shortcomings of their theory.
Latemarch/2
It doesn’t just start with the book, it stops there as well. Why bother with something as mundane as the nature of this Universe when you’re soon going to be in a place incomparably more awesome and blissful?
Hoosfoos @3
Reality certainly is different!
It’s not only stranger than we imagine it seems to be determined to be stranger than we can imagine.
I am not sure sure that they are happy about the reality that they are finding based on the rush to take shelter in the fantasy of the multiverse.
Sev @4
Heh! I've been here long enough to know that you've had your head handed to you on that particular slander against Christianity… yet he persisted. Still here and still searching for the meaning in life that is refused you in materialism. It's not far from you. I've prayed for you and will continue to do so.
Anyone here knowledgable enough to comment on what Halton Arp might have to say about this discovery?
https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/origins_of_quasars_and_galaxy_clusters
Quasars may not be as far away as these people with high confidence think they are.