Philip Cunningham writes to say, quoting Sabine Hossenfelder:
“Two years ago I told you about a new quasar measurement that came out completely wrong. A stunning 4.9 sigma away from the prediction. What they did in this work was to calculate the motion of our galaxy relative to all the other matter in the universe, and relative to the radiation from the cosmic microwave background. According to the currently accepted standard model of cosmology the two results should agree. They do not. “This analysis has now independently been repeated by a second group, which just reported their results on the pre-print server. The paper has not yet been peer-reviewed, but they confirm the anomaly and indeed they find an even higher statistical significance of 5.7 sigma. “I really think that cosmologist should pay more attention to this anomaly, … – Sabine Hossenfelder – – New Cosmology Anomaly Confirmed, Particle Physics Anomaly Vanishes (2:24 minute mark – January 11, 2023)
Papers she references:
A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars (2021)
and
Testing the Cosmological Principle with CatWISE Quasars: A Bayesian Analysis of the Number-Count Dipole (December 2022)
Also: From “Heart of Darkness” by Subir Sarkar (March 2022) at Inference Review
Excerpt: In this essay, I argue that the standard model of cosmology is wrong.
… Pauli offered no reason why the vacuum energy density should not gravitate, and overlooked, or ignored, the obvious conflict with general relativity. In Einstein’s theory, all forms of energy must gravitate.
This is the bone in our throat….
… Since our peculiar velocity was estimated to be a few hundred km/s, the amplitude of the dipole in the cosmic microwave background temperature should then be = β ≃ ≃ 10–3. This predicted anisotropy was indeed detected soon afterward….
,, For this reason, the kinematic interpretation of the cosmic microwave background dipole has been widely accepted….
… No Cosmic Rest Frame, No Convergence
THESE ASSUMPTIONS ARE no longer tenable. Several independent data sets now argue against the existence of a cosmic rest frame….
… These are potentially paradigm-changing developments….
… So far as the universe has been mapped in detail, there is no convergence to the cosmic microwave background frame.
A Direct Test
IN A REVIEW of these puzzling observations, the astronomer James Gunn expressed a radical thought: “Most of the problem, it seems to me, would disappear if the [cosmic microwave background] did not, in fact, provide a rest frame.”27…
… The anomalously large dipole is not of local origin….
This anomaly can no longer be dismissed. It appears that the cosmic rest frames of matter traced by quasars and the cosmic microwave background do not coincide.
This is in accordance with Tsagas’s expectations from the Raychaudhuri equation of general relativity and clearly demonstrates that the inferred acceleration is not due to a cosmological constant.43
It exists because we are non-Copernican observers embedded in a deep bulk flow.
Who’s right?