Cosmology Physics

Sabine Hossenfelder: New evidence against the Standard Model of cosmology

Spread the love

Transcript here:

Since 2003 astrophysicists know the „great wall“ a collection of galaxies about a billion light years away from us that extends over 1.5 billion light years. That too, is larger than it should be.

Then there’s the “Huge quasar group” which is… huge. It spans a whopping four Billion light-years. And just in July Alexia Lopez discovered the “Giant Arc” a collection of galaxies, galaxy clusters, gas and dust that spans 3 billion light years.

Theoretically, these structures shouldn’t exist. It can happen that such clumps appear coincidentally in the concordance model. That’s because this model uses an initial distribution of matter in the early universe with random fluctuations. So it could happen you end up with a big clump somewhere just by chance. But you can calculate the probability for that to happen. The Giant Arc alone has a probability of less than one in a hundred-thousand to have come about by chance. And that doesn’t factor in all the other big structures.

What does it mean? It means the evidence is mounting that the cosmological principle is a bad assumption to develop a model for the entire universe and it probably has to go. It increasingly looks like we live in a region in the universe that happens to have a significantly lower density than the average in the visible universe. This area of underdensity which we live in has been called the “local hole”, and it has a diameter of at least 600 million light years. This is the finding of a recent paper by a group of astrophysicists from Durham in the UK.

Sabine Hossenfelder, “New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology” at BackRe(Action)

We’re so lucky. Those things just keep on “happening.”


You may also wish to read: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

11 Replies to “Sabine Hossenfelder: New evidence against the Standard Model of cosmology

  1. 1
    Dick says:

    Didn’t Ms Hossenfelder not too long ago do a video pooh-poohing the idea of fortuitous cosmic coincidences and the belief that the cosmos is fine-tuned for life? At some point even the most arrant skeptics will have to admit that something’s going on here.

  2. 2
    Querius says:

    Dick,

    Dr. Hossenfelder is commendable for her general transparency. As the evidence mounts, she does change her positions rather than grimly holding on to past theories.

    How the clumpiness of the universe came to be is why she expects a new theory replacing the current standard cosmological model.

    How such a new model might involve fine tuning is anyone’s guess. Also, we don’t know whether any, some, or all-fine tuned constants are emergent from something else. Reality at quantum scales seems to be based on interference behavior of probability waves in a mathematical surface, which are entangled by functional information and observation.

    However, scientific progress in these areas has been stunted by over-commitment to inadequate mathematical models (according to Dr. Hossenfelder) and the widespread ideological commitment to materialism.

    -Q

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Perhaps cosmologists should consult the pool of mathematicians and theoretical physicists here at UD for advice on how to improve their inadequate models. I’m sure any help with such intractable problems would be greatly appreciated.

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    And that’s precisely what NOT to do according to Dr. Hossenfelder. She wrote this book in response to too much math and fantasy, and not enough experimental evidence.

    Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray
    https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/0465094252

    In this “provocative” book (New York Times), a contrarian physicist argues that her field’s modern obsession with beauty has given us wonderful math but bad science.

    Whether pondering black holes or predicting discoveries at CERN, physicists believe the best theories are beautiful, natural, and elegant, and this standard separates popular theories from disposable ones. This is why, Sabine Hossenfelder argues, we have not seen a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for more than four decades.

    The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these “too good to not be true” theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.

    Researchers are simply too keen to find new mathematical models and materialistic explanations.

    -Q

  5. 5
    awstar says:

    How the clumpiness of the universe came to be is why she expects a new theory replacing the current standard cosmological model.

    Good news for those of us who have placed our bets on the Genesis 1 theory. There’s a lot of smart people whipping a dead horse, while the most unsophisticated of society still have a chance to be riding a winner.

    For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1 Corinthians 1:19-20

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Awstar,
    Yep. I also like the how H.L. Mencken unintentionally expressed it in “The Divine Afflatus” (1919).

    There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.

    I first heard it paraphrased from my Quantitative Analysis professor regarding deceptive solutions in chemistry, but it’s broadly applicable to all human endeavor including business, health, and politics.

    Funny, but for many years, skeptics have pointed out how silly it was that Genesis 1 indicates that light came into existence before the stars, sun, and moon. And now this is exactly what science currently tells us!

    -Q

  7. 7
    Pearlman says:

    The YeC (and ID) ‘SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model’ may be the reconciliation, and become the new standard as an over 150T:1 Parsimony advantage, plus many other advantages over SCM-LCDM
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B07DP4TBZ5

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Cosmologists can’t explain the existence of the cosmos.

  9. 9
    tjguy says:

    ??
    ET said: “Cosmologists can’t explain the existence of the cosmos.”

    Right. Origin of all matter is a huge problem for them. But even after they get their matter using their own models/hypotheses, they still cannot explain a good 96% of the universe.

    Actually, I don’t like to use the word “explain” here. Explanations can be wrong. Just you have an “explanation” doesn’t make it true. There are so many just so stories out there it is ridiculous!
    So , to me, if the “explanation” is untestable, it’s not worth much because really, it is nothing more than a hypothesis and we all know how good that is – not very good at all.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Since 2003 astrophysicists know the “great wall“ a collection of galaxies about a billion light years away from us that extends over 1.5 billion light years. That too, is larger than it should be.
    Then there’s the “Huge quasar group” which is… huge. It spans a whopping four Billion light-years. And just in July Alexia Lopez discovered the “Giant Arc” a collection of galaxies, galaxy clusters, gas and dust that spans 3 billion light years.
    Theoretically, these structures shouldn’t exist.,,,
    What does it mean? It means the evidence is mounting that the cosmological principle is a bad assumption to develop a model for the entire universe and it probably has to go.”
    – Hossenfelder

    First it is important to note that the Cosmological Principle is a generalization of the Copernican Principle which holds that “humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe,,”

    Cosmological principle
    Excerpt: “the cosmological principle [means that] the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are.”[2]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle#Definition

    Copernican principle
    Excerpt: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe.[1]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

    So thus when Hossenfelder states that the “cosmological principle is a bad assumption to develop a model for the entire universe and it probably has to go”, she is hinting, unwittingly or not, that the Copernican Principle itself, upon which the Cosmological Principle is based, may also have to go.

    And indeed we find that to be the case.

    In the following study of “the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies”, which “is almost an order of magnitude larger than the scale at which inhomogeneities (Super-clusters, Great-Wall, Voids etc.)” occur, (Which are the inhomogeneities that Hossenfelder was raising concern over).
    Moreover these findings are held to be quote-unquote ‘robust’ and occur on “the largest scale in which discrete objects have been seen in the universe”. Moreover, the author, Ashok K. Singal, further noted that “any anisotropy or inhomogeneity on that scale is certainly a cause of worry as it will negate the cosmological principle.”

    A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies
    Ashok K. Singal – 2014
    Excerpt Page 7: It should be noted that the scale spanned by FR1s in the universe (up to a gigaparsec) is almost an order of magnitude larger than the scale at which inhomogeneities (Super-clusters, Great-Wall, Voids etc.) have till now been seen through optical observations. And of course quasars further cover a scale an order of magnitude larger than FR1s. This in fact is the largest scale in which discrete objects have been seen in the universe and any anisotropy or inhomogeneity on that scale is certainly a cause of worry as it will negate the cosmological principle.
    These results are robust. There is little likelihood that these anomalies could be due to some missing or even spurious sources in the 3CRR catalogue, a radio complete sample of sources, in the sense that all source above the sensitivity limit of the catalogue have been detected and listed.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf

    Fanaroff-Riley Class I (FR-I)
    These sources are brighter towards their central galaxy or quasar and become fainter toward the outer extremities of the lobes (also called edge-darkened). The spectra here are steepest, indicating that the radiating particles have aged the most. Jets are detected in a large majority of FR-I galaxies, and these hosts also tend to be bright, large galaxies often located in rich clusters with extreme X-ray emitting gas. As the galaxy moves through the cluster, the gas can sweep back and distort the radio structure through ram pressure.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanaroff–Riley_classification#Fanaroff-Riley_Class_I_(FR-I)

    And as Ashok K. Singal asked in the abstract of his paper, do these inhomogeneities imply an “apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon?”

    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?
    – ibid

    And here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that line up with the earth and solar system were found, via ‘averaging out’, in the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    What is even more interesting still about these ‘tiny temperature variations’ in the CMBR that surprisingly line up with the earth and solar system is that the tiny temperature variations (in the CMBR) ‘just so happen’ to correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation.
    And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across.
    The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today.
    But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,,
    Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
    In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

    Of further note, the CMBR, quasars and galaxy alignment taken together give us an x, y, and Z axis and reveal that we have a ‘preferred position’ in the universe.

    As the following article, (with illustration) explains,

    “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.”
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

    Thus, contrary to the presumptions of atheists that there is nothing very special about the earth or humanity,, (and far from the temperature variations in the CMBR being (merely) a product of random quantum fluctuations as they presuppose in their inflation model), we find instead that the temperature variations in the CMBR, (and due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being ‘flat to 1 part within 10^57), correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”. Moreover, we were only able to discover this correlation between the tiny temperature variation in the CMB and the largest scale structures in the universe via the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being fine-tuned to at least 1 in 10^57 flatness.

    In other words, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, to the the large scale structures in the universe, reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth, (and even humanity), from the start. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not just some random cosmic fluke as atheists had falsely presupposed with the Cosmological and/or Copernican Principle.

    Job 38:4-6
    Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
    Tell Me, if you have understanding.
    Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know!
    Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
    On what were its foundations set,
    or who laid its cornerstone,d.

    Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    Of supplemental note, besides this piece of fairly strong empirical evidence from the CMBR, galaxy and quasar distribution overturning the Copernican Principle, the Copernican Principle is also directly challenged, if not completely overthrown, by several other lines of fairly powerful empirical evidence.

    ,,, 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:
    August 2021
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/privileged-address-an-excerpt-from-neil-thomass-taking-leave-of-darwin/#comment-736493

  11. 11
    Silver Asiatic says:

    But you can calculate the probability for that to happen. The Giant Arc alone has a probability of less than one in a hundred-thousand to have come about by chance.

    Those kinds of odds don’t seem to set them back. There’s always another assumption that can be fabricated or various Ptolemaic epicycles to add for adjustments.
    The odds of abiogenesis are much worse than one in a hundred-thousand.
    Every once in a while a scientist realizes the insanity of what they’ve been doing.

Leave a Reply