Standard Model doubted at Inference Review

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 1, 2022

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Subir Sarkar, Emeritus Professor at the Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, offers arguments against the Standard Model in cosmology:

Cosmological data are now routinely corrected by a special-relativity boost transforming the measured redshift and magnitudes of distant objects to the presumptively isotropic cosmic rest frame. In the cosmic microwave background frame, the large-scale averaged distribution of matter is also assumed to be isotropic. The Friedmann–Lemaître equations can then be applied to the transformed magnitudes and red shifts…
These assumptions are no longer tenable. Several independent data sets now argue against the existence of a cosmic rest frame. At low redshift (z ≲ 0.1), all matter in our local supercluster of galaxies has a coherent bulk flow approximately aligned with the direction of the cosmic microwave background dipole: no convergence to the cosmic rest frame is seen on scales as large as ~300/h Mpc. At high redshift (z > 1), the observed dipole in the sky-distribution of distant radio sources and quasars is significantly larger than expected according to the kinematic interpretation of the cosmic microwave background dipole. Phenomena are in conflict with the cosmological principle. They directly challenge the claim that the universe is dominated by vacuum energy, which rests on its assumed large-scale homogeneity and isotropy. These are potentially paradigm-changing developments.
Subir Sarkar, “Heart of Darkness” at Inference Review (March 2022)

People whose views are otherwise disparate are saying the same thing:

Rob Sheldon On The New Evidence Against The Standard Model In Cosmology: “The Party’s Over.”

and

Sabine Hossenfelder: New evidence against the Standard Model of cosmology

Comments

From the referenced essay:
A STANDARD MODEL for cosmology is nothing new. In Europe, Ptolemy’s geocentric theory held sway for nearly two thousand years. If its underlying assumptions had no physical basis, the theory was better than the competition. [footnote 6] “Absolutely all phenomena, are in contradiction,” Ptolemy wrote, “to any of the alternate notions that have been propounded.” ..snip .. [footnote 6: Contrary to the popular myth that it required adding unacceptably large numbers of epicycles to correct errors, the geocentric system was never in such crisis. See Owen Gingerich, The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1993). The heliocentric theory prevailed not because it better fit the data, at least initially, but because it was a better theory, providing a physical basis for planetary motions. The increasing precision of the data eventually made a difference too. ...]
It seems to me that the cosmological principle was the result of erroneously accepting without question the Copernican principle "i.e. the Earth is not special". After much cosmological investigation, it turns out that the Earth truly is very special, as every living thing on it testifies every second of every hour of every day. Tycho Brahe's view that the sun revolved around the earth and the planets around the sun didn't need to be jettisoned by Kepler. Kepler could just as well have used his easier math and ellipses on all of the other planets plus the sun and come up with a model that was mathematically equivalent in predicting motion, AND would serve as an even better physical basis than the heliocentric model once Newton came along. If Kepler had done so, a neo-Tycho-Geocentric model would easily support all that has been actually observed and measured ever since. Such as: Hard to find stellar parallax, Michelson-Morley's null -- BUT NOT ZERO -- aether flow, the Sagnac effect, Hubbel's red shift, CMB dipole alignment, and everything else BA points to in the first two comments.awstar_{April 2, 2022
April
04
Apr
2
02
2022
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Moreover, in 2013 and 2015 Ashok K. Singal also authored two other papers studying the distribution of quasars and other radio galaxies in the universe. He found odd alignments with the earth that directly implied a violation of the Copernican principle. In fact, in his 2015 paper Singal asked, "Are these alignments a mere coincidence or do they imply that these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon?"
Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? - Ashok K. Singal - May 17, 2013 Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies - Ashok K. Singal Astrophysics and Space Science volume 357, Article number: 152 (2015) Abstract We report the presence of large anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars as well as some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR survey, the most reliable and most intensively studied complete sample of strong steep-spectrum radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the equinoxes and the north celestial pole. Out of a total of 48 quasars in the sample, 33 of them lie in one half of the observed sky and the remaining 15 in the other half. The probability that in a random distribution of 3CRR quasars in the sky, statistical fluctuations could give rise to an asymmetry in observed numbers up to this level is only ?1 %. Also only about 1/4th of Fanaroff-Riley 1 (FR1) type of radio galaxies lie in the first half of the observed sky and the remainder in the second half. If we include all the observed asymmetries in the sky distributions of quasars and radio galaxies in the 3CRR sample, the probability of their occurrence by a chance combination reduces to ?(approx.) 2×10?5. Two pertinent but disturbing questions that could be raised here are—firstly why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes. Are these alignments a mere coincidence or do they imply that these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-015-2388-2
Moreover, these large scale structures of the universe, (i.e. the distribution of quasars and other radio galaxies in the universe), combined with the CMBR anomalies, (via supplying us with proper x, y, and z coordinates), 'unexpectedly' overturn the Copernican principle and support the antiquated, and quaint, ‘medieval’ Theistic belief that the earth should be considered ‘central’ in the universe. As the following article and illustration make clear,
“Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.” For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms: “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.” – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2013,.. Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.” https://debunkingalecmacandrew.blogspot.com/2014/11/welcome-to-catholic-star-wars-principle.html Illustration - https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png
In short, the anomalies in the CMBR, and the large scale structures in the universe, combine with each other to 'unexpectedly' reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth from the start of creation. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not simply the result of some random cosmic fluctuation as atheists had erroneously presupposed within their chaotic inflation model. Further notes that, (unambiguously), overturn the Copernican Principle and/or the principle of Mediocrity.
Moreover, the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity has now been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science: (as well as by several other lines of scientific evidence) March 2022 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/neil-thomas-on-evolutionary-theory-as-magical-thinking/#comment-748883
Hopefully atheists will soon get over their 'disappointment' that they are not to be considered merely 'chemical scum' in short order,,
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes." - (the late) Stephen Hawking
Verse:
Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”
bornagain77_{April 2, 2022
April
04
Apr
2
02
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

as to:
Heart of Darkness - Subir Sarkar - March 2022 Excerpt: In this essay, I argue that the standard model of cosmology is wrong.,,, ,, 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 ? = ? ? ? 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.44 https://inference-review.com/article/heart-of-darkness
And here is their referenced paper (44):
A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars - 2021 February 25 Abstract We study the large-scale anisotropy of the universe by measuring the dipole in the angular distribution of a flux-limited, all-sky sample of 1.36 million quasars observed by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE). This sample is derived from the new CatWISE2020 catalog, which contains deep photometric measurements at 3.4 and 4.6 ?m from the cryogenic, post-cryogenic, and reactivation phases of the WISE mission. While the direction of the dipole in the quasar sky is similar to that of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), its amplitude is over twice as large as expected, rejecting the canonical, exclusively kinematic interpretation of the CMB dipole with a p-value of 5 × 10?7 (4.9? for a normal distribution, one-sided), the highest significance achieved to date in such studies. Our results are in conflict with the cosmological principle, a foundational assumption of the concordance ?CDM model. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40
Ashok K. Singal weighs in with this paper from July 2021
Solar system peculiar motion from the Hubble diagram of quasars and testing the Cosmological Principle - Ashok K. Singal - July 2021 Excerpt: Since a genuine solar peculiar velocity cannot vary from one dataset to the other, an order of magnitude, statistically significant, discordant dipoles, might imply that we may instead have to look for some other cause for the genesis of these dipole, including that of the CMBR. At the same time, a common direction for all these dipoles, determined from completely independent surveys by different groups employing different techniques, might indicate that these dipoles are not resulting from some systematics in the observations or in the data analysis, but could instead suggest a preferred direction in the Universe due to an inherent anisotropy, which, in turn, would be against the Cosmological Principle (CP), the most basic tenet of the modern cosmology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.09390
To translate all this into English, the kinematic interpretation of the cosmic microwave background dipole held that the dipole anomaly observed in the CMBR was due to the motion of the observer through a frame in which the cosmic microwave background was held to be at rest. Yet as Subir Sarkar stated in his article, "The anomalously large dipole is not of local origin". In short, the anomalous dipole of the CMBR is a real, tangible, feature of the CMBR and is not simply the result of our motion through space. And what is so interesting about the anomalous dipole being a real and tangible feature of the CMBR is that the CMBR dipole 'unexpectedly' aligns with the earth’s equator,
Cosmology Excerpt: NASA and the European Space Agency have sent a series of probes intended to “prove” the homogeneity and isotropy of a supposed Big Bang universe. Such proof would, by inference, demonstrate the insignificance of planet earth and mankind. The outcome? Ever more refined data from higher resolution deep space probes, COBE in 1990, WMAP in 2001, and Planck in 2013, have demonstrated the opposite, the inhomogeneity and anisotropy of the universe with our earthly home at it’s geometric center. The data showed three axes of symmetry intersecting our earth at the center of the universe: (1) the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) dipole aligned with the earth’s equator, (2) the CMBR quadrupole aligned with the earth’s ecliptic plane, and (3) concentric galaxy, quasar, and x-ray burst alignment with the earth’s equator and North Celestial Pole. https://judaism.is/cosmology.html
The following illustration and article highlights this 'unexpected' dipole anomaly that lines up with the Earth's equator.
Illustration - "The ecliptic - the plane of the Earth's orbit projected onto the celestial sphere - is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.,," http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/16/14/18/96/axis_o10.jpg Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? - Dragan Huterer - 2007 Excerpt: The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights? Caption under figure on page 43: ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf
And here is an excellent clip from "The Principle" that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR in an easy to understand manner.
Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
bornagain77_{April 2, 2022
April
04
Apr
2
02
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply