'Less Clumpy' Universe May Suggest Existence of Mysterious Forces (theguardian.com) 41
One of the most precise surveys of the structure of the universe has suggested it is "less clumpy" than expected, in findings that could indicate the existence of mysterious forces at work. From a report: The observations by the Dark Energy Survey and the South Pole Telescope chart the distribution of matter with the aim of understanding the competing forces that shaped the evolution of the universe and govern its ultimate fate. The extraordinarily detailed analysis adds to a body of evidence that suggests there may be a crucial component missing from the so-called standard model of physics.
"It seems like there is slightly less [clumpiness] in the current universe than we would predict assuming our standard cosmological model anchored to the early universe," said Eric Baxter, an astrophysicist at the University of Hawaii and co-author of the study. The results did not pass the statistical threshold that scientists consider to be ironclad enough to claim a discovery, but they do come after similar findings from previous surveys that hint a crack could be opening up between theoretical predictions and what is actually going on in the universe. "If the finding stands up it's very exciting," said Dr Chihway Chang, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and a lead author. "The whole point of physics is to test models and break them. The best scenario is it helps us understand more about the nature of dark matter and dark energy."
"It seems like there is slightly less [clumpiness] in the current universe than we would predict assuming our standard cosmological model anchored to the early universe," said Eric Baxter, an astrophysicist at the University of Hawaii and co-author of the study. The results did not pass the statistical threshold that scientists consider to be ironclad enough to claim a discovery, but they do come after similar findings from previous surveys that hint a crack could be opening up between theoretical predictions and what is actually going on in the universe. "If the finding stands up it's very exciting," said Dr Chihway Chang, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and a lead author. "The whole point of physics is to test models and break them. The best scenario is it helps us understand more about the nature of dark matter and dark energy."
STOP! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The "simulation" you think exists is merely a mathematical abstraction known as the AdS/CFT correspondence. It shows that the information in the bulk (AdS) can be represented as information on the boundary (CFT). AdS stands for anti-deSitter space. CFT stands for Conformal Field Theory; think of one of Escher's drawings with angels and devils in a circle meshing together and getting uniformly smaller as they approach the boundary of the circle, that's the conformal geometry.
AdS It is a space that has a nega
Re: STOP! (Score:2)
Wrong. The simulation theory depends on the simple logic that once a civilisation can simulate a universe then they could create as many copies as they like leading to the assertion that on the basis of probability that simulations way outnumber real universes we're probably living in one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: STOP! (Score:2)
You wouldn't need to fully simulate one to fool its inhabitants. You completely control their world so can make them see what you want them to see and if you screw up you just roll the sim back to a previous save point.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, if we're a simulation we don't have the faintest idea what reality and other simulations or like, nor whether the latter exist at all.
The simulation hypothesis is "supported" by claims that might not be relevant if it is true.
Who would want to simulate a universe? (Score:2)
There are some fundamental fallacies in the universe-simulation theory. Which, btw., is nothing other that a rehash of the early bronze-age story of the all-seeing, all-knowing dictator in heaven that has his own special plan for you. And I though we just were past that, no?
1.) The address space of ZFS is so large, it every bit was an atom - neglecting connections for sake of simplicity - you'd have a memory/storage the size of the moon (roughly), and one entire read/write would use as much energy as the Su
Re: (Score:2)
The simulation theory may have problems, but your utterly irrelevant babblings are not them. Were you stoned when you wrote your post?
Re: (Score:1)
No, you have to sing hymns to the Admin about how great He is, and stop jacking off. The big religions already learned this: fluff His ego but not your wanker so you don't get sent to the hot SSD recycler in the basement. (For some reason the Admin doesn't like the little "ants" in His ant farm wanking.)
Re: STOP! (Score:2)
I, too, am a BOFH.
3 Body Problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 11 (or 10) dimensions come from string theory. Brian Greene introduced them to cut down string theory from 26 dimensions to 10. This necessitated super-symmetry. However, the LHC hasn't seen any super-symmetric particles at the energies they expected. I suppose they could still be hiding out there, but they are proving to be elusive little devils. And the extra dimensions are usual down at the Plank scale, so there's no hope of detecting those in your life time or your kids, grandkids, great grandkids,
Re: (Score:3)
As we have moved the extra dimensions out of the directly observable universe, we have to find indirect methods to test for them. But apparently, none of the probably observable effects like magnetic monopoles or supersymmetric particles have been detected so far.
Re: 3 Body Problem (Score:2)
It rather presumes that wed be able to observe extra dimensions if they weren't all plank size. Theres no reason that should be the case. If the known particles and forces are constrained to 3 dimensions then the 4th dimension could be all around us and wed never see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about spacial dimensions , not time. And you've missed the point - if the known particles and forces are constrained to 3 dimensions then you'd still only have an inverse square law even if there were 5 spacial dimensions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying its a possibility. There seems to be an assumption that any force or particle would manifest in any higher dimensions that exist. I see no reason for that to be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Brian Greene was 8 years old when supersymmetry was published. It was introduced to add fermions to string theory, which also reduced the required dimensions from 26 to 10.
Re: (Score:2)
"Big if true" (Score:1)
We don't know what we don't know. (Score:1)
-Exciting indeed.
LoooK the Force - LoooK its all around YoU (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Dark Rake (Score:1)
Let's see, they conjured up Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Gravity, Dark Dimensions, Dark Chocolate*, and so why not Dark Rake to "solve" this smoothness mystery.
* Okay, I stuck that in, I'm hungry.
I Wonder (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard it's the only way to make an apple pie.
Finding even more things to study? (Score:2)
Interesting how astronomers keep finding new things to study, keeping them employed. I mean, sure, the Universe is practically infinite, but you'd think they could wrap it at some point and move on, but I guess the bills don't pay themselves... :-)
Also, take it from someone who was married Astronomers, using the word "clumpy" to describe appearance never ends well for you.
Re: (Score:2)
No wonder the universe likes beating us up. We've been describing her as lumpy, chunky, huge, massive, fat, you name it, for so long she's developed a complex and is taking it out on all of us.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, though I'm sure someone will mod it Troll at some point -- while ignoring the "Whoosh" overhead. :-)
A giant cat (Score:4, Funny)
The "mysterious forces" are really a giant cat trying to use the now "less clumpy" litter box.
Or regular forces (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hardly a day goes by without the science-popularization press announcing a study or hypothesis that's going to revolutionize our understanding of how things work. Most of them you never hear of again, unless some clueless "influencer" picks up on them.
Re: (Score:2)
The mysterious nature is how to keep milking the String Theory grift while solving open problems in physics.
McCullough et. al. have small added terms for existing Gravitational equations that clean up these observations. Their work threatens billions in funding and overhead, so guess how well that is going.
Re: (Score:2)