Ring of galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Ring of galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67950749
56 comments
It's not a hard violation, just that they are large enough and there are enough of them that you would not expect them to form in a universe that is otherwise described by the cosmological principle.
A random array of points can form a grid, but if you see a grid somewhere the natural assumption is that it wasn't formed by a random process.
A random array of points can form a grid, but if you see a grid somewhere the natural assumption is that it wasn't formed by a random process.
Yet any arbitrary sequence (e.g. of bits) has an equal probability of occurring in a random bitstring. 111111 is equally likely as 100110 or 010101. Asked "which one is random?" most people would say the middle one (even people who know better, like me).
Personally I discount the likes of 111111 and 010101 because I know there are artificial processes which produce those sequences and so I discount them on that basis. Yet if you were training a machine to recognize "random" data you'd need to include one sample of each of the possible 2^6 sequences to train it on representative data.
There is another category of random / not random to be considered: self-similar data, where there is similar data in the same area or at different scales. Taken in total, all sequences in this "universe" may be nonetheless randomly distributed.
A taxonomy / review of sequences which we generate inordinately and what phenomena are affected is missing. Self-similar data always deserves a second look, although the cause can be a natural self-organizing principle (e.g. literal snowflakes).
Personally I discount the likes of 111111 and 010101 because I know there are artificial processes which produce those sequences and so I discount them on that basis. Yet if you were training a machine to recognize "random" data you'd need to include one sample of each of the possible 2^6 sequences to train it on representative data.
There is another category of random / not random to be considered: self-similar data, where there is similar data in the same area or at different scales. Taken in total, all sequences in this "universe" may be nonetheless randomly distributed.
A taxonomy / review of sequences which we generate inordinately and what phenomena are affected is missing. Self-similar data always deserves a second look, although the cause can be a natural self-organizing principle (e.g. literal snowflakes).
Then why is life, which is more complex and structured, assumed to have arisen by chance?
If random processes can give birth to structure, then one can also argue that maybe this ring is a fluke.
Remember that randomness is not necessarily uniformity
If random processes can give birth to structure, then one can also argue that maybe this ring is a fluke.
Remember that randomness is not necessarily uniformity
Life is an extremely interesting and complex phenomenon worthy of study. It's not a counterexample to the observation that structure and complexity indicate interesting phenomena, rather than "coincidence".
Yes, this ring could be an example of structure, but what caused the structure?
One explanation is that it is not due to any new physics; it is just that randomness happened to produce that apparent structure.
So my point is, if we go looking for some new physical phenomena that could have produced the structure, then why the unwillingness to probe unknown forces that could have produced life?
One explanation is that it is not due to any new physics; it is just that randomness happened to produce that apparent structure.
So my point is, if we go looking for some new physical phenomena that could have produced the structure, then why the unwillingness to probe unknown forces that could have produced life?
Because of ideology. They’re both inquisitive but one veers to close to other subjects considered fanciful such as simulations or some creator force, whereas the other seems to seek other types of scientific explanation.
Because it only needs one random "hit". After that self-replication makes sure it doesn't have to happen again.
Btw: the first self-replicating molecules wouldn't have been particularly complex. It may have been a half-broken piece of RNA, not from base atoms but from nucleic acids. And it only matters that it formed RNA (it does not matter what the code "in" the RNA was. It would be self-replicating no matter what that code was, so there were many valid possibilities). Also there's no need to get the "ladder" part of the molecule right. Yes it requires random chance, sure, but it may not be all that unlikely.
Btw: the first self-replicating molecules wouldn't have been particularly complex. It may have been a half-broken piece of RNA, not from base atoms but from nucleic acids. And it only matters that it formed RNA (it does not matter what the code "in" the RNA was. It would be self-replicating no matter what that code was, so there were many valid possibilities). Also there's no need to get the "ladder" part of the molecule right. Yes it requires random chance, sure, but it may not be all that unlikely.
This structure is too large in relation to our observable universe for it to be explainable by a mere coincidence. It's 1.3bn light years in diameter, while the observable universe is 93bn light years in diameter.
This is also not the only such structure found, some other examples are even larger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cosmic_structu...
This is also not the only such structure found, some other examples are even larger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cosmic_structu...
> This structure is too large in relation to our observable universe for it to be explainable by a mere coincidence. It's 1.3bn light years in diameter, while the observable universe is 93bn light years in diameter.
Why is that important?
Why is that important?
It should be possible to calculate them likelihood of distributions with a given degree of apparent structure. Not a given structure, but the degree of variance from a typical random distribution.
Not entirely sure if it applies to this two cases "Big Ring" and "Giant Arc", here, but other large "structures" have been found in the past and this paper "Seeing patterns in noise: gigaparsec-scale "structures" that do not violate homogeneity (2013)[0] addresses the possible randomness:
>In general when using an algorithmic approach to identify clusters of points in a distribution, one must employ some criterion in order to decide whether the results obtained correspond to ‘real’ structures in the Universe, or are merely artefacts of the algorithm. One possible criterion is theoretical: if there is a good reason to believe that the points in the cluster are in fact gravitationally bound, for instance, or if its properties match those of structures that are expected to exist in the real Universe, it may be regarded as real. Alternatively, to assess unusual clusters which do not conform to theoretical expectation, the relevant criterion is whether they are unlikely to have arisen purely from noise.
Since the linkage length used to identify the Huge-LQG is so large, there is no reason I know of to believe that it forms a gravitationally bound structure. Certainly no real structures of such size are expected in the standard cosmology. On the other hand, when using this linkage length the clustering algorithm often finds such extended structures even in pure Poisson noise. It therefore appears that the Huge-LQG fails to satisfy either criterion, and so its interpretation as a ‘structure’ is highly questionable. This conclusion is even more applicable to the other slightly smaller quasar groups whose existence has also been claimed.
[0]https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/434/1/398/997865
>In general when using an algorithmic approach to identify clusters of points in a distribution, one must employ some criterion in order to decide whether the results obtained correspond to ‘real’ structures in the Universe, or are merely artefacts of the algorithm. One possible criterion is theoretical: if there is a good reason to believe that the points in the cluster are in fact gravitationally bound, for instance, or if its properties match those of structures that are expected to exist in the real Universe, it may be regarded as real. Alternatively, to assess unusual clusters which do not conform to theoretical expectation, the relevant criterion is whether they are unlikely to have arisen purely from noise.
Since the linkage length used to identify the Huge-LQG is so large, there is no reason I know of to believe that it forms a gravitationally bound structure. Certainly no real structures of such size are expected in the standard cosmology. On the other hand, when using this linkage length the clustering algorithm often finds such extended structures even in pure Poisson noise. It therefore appears that the Huge-LQG fails to satisfy either criterion, and so its interpretation as a ‘structure’ is highly questionable. This conclusion is even more applicable to the other slightly smaller quasar groups whose existence has also been claimed.
[0]https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/434/1/398/997865
Buried an interesting fact at the bottom --
This is seen as a ring, but likely a coil aligned with our viewpoint.
I don't know much about astronomy, but that fact changed how I played with the idea in my head.
This is seen as a ring, but likely a coil aligned with our viewpoint.
I don't know much about astronomy, but that fact changed how I played with the idea in my head.
Yes, I might be able encompass how a set of galaxies evolve into a ring structure but what process would end up with the galaxies in a coil configuration (viewed end on).
To my mind, the coil structure is the bigger headline, a bit buried in the BBC article.
I’ll try to get and read the AAS paper at the weekend, perhaps that will help me.
To my mind, the coil structure is the bigger headline, a bit buried in the BBC article.
I’ll try to get and read the AAS paper at the weekend, perhaps that will help me.
> what process would end up with the galaxies in a coil configuration (viewed end on).
Something that has both a linear and an angular momentum or spin while pushing things (galaxies in this case) away?
I’m not a physicist in any way, so I might use terms incorrectly, but I hope the point got across.
Something that has both a linear and an angular momentum or spin while pushing things (galaxies in this case) away?
I’m not a physicist in any way, so I might use terms incorrectly, but I hope the point got across.
This was a presentation at a conference; there’s probably no paper to read (yet, anyway).
Any circle might be a coil in more than 2 dimensions.
Any coil might have inductance.
"Such large structures should not exist according to one of the guiding principles of astronomy, called the cosmological principle. This states that all matter is spread smoothly across the Universe."
This passage/article doesn't make intuitive sense to me here. What in this physical universe is smoothly spread? Only if you average or look at a massive aggregate level, sure. But at each "zoom level" there should be another non-smooth structure, while things at a smaller level smooth out.
It's more or less fractal all the way up and down.
I don't think this challenges our thinking on the cosmos?
This passage/article doesn't make intuitive sense to me here. What in this physical universe is smoothly spread? Only if you average or look at a massive aggregate level, sure. But at each "zoom level" there should be another non-smooth structure, while things at a smaller level smooth out.
It's more or less fractal all the way up and down.
I don't think this challenges our thinking on the cosmos?
To put it crudely, it's about how it started vs how it's going - initial distribution is expected to have been uniform with small fluctuations that over time were exacerbated by gravity resulting in the Universe we see today. A ring of galaxies implies some unexpected very early structure - like seeing shapes in an explosion.
A budding Kardashev IV civ https://kardashev.fandom.com/wiki/Type_IV
Maybe the matter is still spread smoothly across the whole cosmos, but the observable universe is tiny enough so that it is not completely smooth and some we see some local artifacts, which would have been smoothed out / insignificant if we saw way more of it inside our viewport.
That would still be a valuable find, though.
That would still be a valuable find, though.
> While the Big Ring appears as an almost perfect ring on the sky, analysis by Ms Lopez suggests it has more of a coil shape - like a corkscrew - with its face aligned with Earth.
I wonder if there are other structures, but we can’t (easily?) tell because of how they are aligned with Earth.
I wonder if there are other structures, but we can’t (easily?) tell because of how they are aligned with Earth.
I don’t find the part, explaining why they think it is a structure and not say an optical illusion? Are all these galaxies of the same-ish distances to us? Are they gravitationally bound together or how should we understand the term “structure” here?
Earlier post about this with link to the university's press release: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38960728
It looks to me like an alien smiley :) of course aliens have only one eye.
[dupe]
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38963315
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38963315
The Danish mysticist and spiritual teacher Martinus started talking about such structures in cosmos about a century ago.
Martinus' spirals are metaphysical and has nothing to do with lumps of galaxies. He's not talking about the structure of the physical universers at all. When he is describing the cosmos its about esoteric truths.
Well, yes and no. I was not referring to his spirals as such, but to the fact that Martinus claims that all structures in the universe are simultaneously a micro- and an macro-organisms (with God defined as the only being that doesn't “have” a macro-organism). And when Martinus talks about X3 he is definitely talking about the physical universe that ranges from the late half of the realm of bliss through the realm of instincts and the realm of the killing principle to the first half of the realm of real humans: all of these have physical bodies, so to speak, and what we as humans see in the sky are but the physical bodies of giantic organisms, according to Martinus' worldview. However, Martinus also claims that the physical appearance of every object/being in the universe is but the letters in a book and that the “real life” is the story in that “book” — Book of Life (“Livets Bog” in Danish) — and that's where it all gets metaphyscial / esoteric. At least that's my understanding.
Well, no just no.
I’ve been reading a lot about simulation theory after recently watching the Matrix again, and hot damn does this fit right into that narrative…
I have good news: everything can fit into that narrative.
Always find it interesting how people (not OP particularly) can hate on religion, but can entertain the ‘simulation theory’.
The problem with religion is not the stories that they tell, from those about Amaterasu to those of Zoroaster[0], but that people take those stories and mistake them for truths.
In this regard, I agree.
[0] Is it just my imagination (or perhaps someone trolling Wikipedia), or does Zoroastrian eschatology seem a bit suspiciously like the Book of Revelation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Eschatology:_Re...
In this regard, I agree.
[0] Is it just my imagination (or perhaps someone trolling Wikipedia), or does Zoroastrian eschatology seem a bit suspiciously like the Book of Revelation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Eschatology:_Re...
1. Those stories do contain truths about humanity. Simulation theory doesn’t from what I gather, it’s purely a materialistic concept.
2. Abrahamic religions are extremely influenced by Zoroastrianism. Christianity maybe the most influenced due to it competing with Persian monotheism for the dominant near east religion.
2. Abrahamic religions are extremely influenced by Zoroastrianism. Christianity maybe the most influenced due to it competing with Persian monotheism for the dominant near east religion.
To the extent that I would accept that religious myths and legends contain truths about humanity, I assert that so too do all the other good stories — that The Fellowship of the Ring was popular because of the Fellowship rather than because of the Ring, that Star Trek and Doctor Who are popular because they gel with the political issues at the time of filming rather than anything to do with subspace fields and the polarities of neutron flows. (Yes, all the settings and technobabble/magical conlangs also allow for very spectacular scenery and events, but I don't think that's what sells them in the long term (it sure does for pure popcorn-spectacle blockbusters, but those are quickly forgotten), for good fiction it's just the icing on the cake).
Likewise for religion, the Greek[0] myths about jealous and infidelious gods speak to mortals in the same situation, and gods playing games with mortals echos with politicians doing the same with their people (especially given the various times and places where leaders have been deified in their own lifetimes).
But there was no Helios driving a chariot across the sky, and Icarus never flew too close to the sun; Ilúvatar never turned the world into a sphere in order that mortal men could no longer sail The Straight Road to Aman; and not only is Noah's Ark nowhere near large enough if taken seriously[1], a majority of Herod biographers and "probably a majority of current biblical scholars" consider the story fabricated or unhistorical[2]. (Also neither of the two kings called Herod line up with the Christian calendar, but a few years here and there is only really a problem for fundamentalists, not normal believers).
[0] now I think about it, it's kinda weird that the Greek ones are more famous than the Roman ones… I suppose the Roman Empire turning Christian part way through has something to do with that?
[1] Depending on which value of cubit you use, about the size of Berlin Zoo's monkey house.
[2] page 171 https://books.google.de/books?id=mWnYvI5RdLMC&q=Herod+and+th...
Likewise for religion, the Greek[0] myths about jealous and infidelious gods speak to mortals in the same situation, and gods playing games with mortals echos with politicians doing the same with their people (especially given the various times and places where leaders have been deified in their own lifetimes).
But there was no Helios driving a chariot across the sky, and Icarus never flew too close to the sun; Ilúvatar never turned the world into a sphere in order that mortal men could no longer sail The Straight Road to Aman; and not only is Noah's Ark nowhere near large enough if taken seriously[1], a majority of Herod biographers and "probably a majority of current biblical scholars" consider the story fabricated or unhistorical[2]. (Also neither of the two kings called Herod line up with the Christian calendar, but a few years here and there is only really a problem for fundamentalists, not normal believers).
[0] now I think about it, it's kinda weird that the Greek ones are more famous than the Roman ones… I suppose the Roman Empire turning Christian part way through has something to do with that?
[1] Depending on which value of cubit you use, about the size of Berlin Zoo's monkey house.
[2] page 171 https://books.google.de/books?id=mWnYvI5RdLMC&q=Herod+and+th...
As a religious person, I find it fascinating how my concept of God could fit into simulation theory. Miracles, prayer, afterlife, healing - all these Christian concepts can be explained very easily if we imagine a futuristic neckbeard sitting in front of his gaming rig playing our world like a giant game of the sims.
> Always find it interesting how people (not OP particularly) can hate on religion, but can entertain the ‘simulation theory’.
The Simulation hypothesis is a rational extrapolation of possible things. Quite different than religion.
The Simulation hypothesis is a rational extrapolation of possible things. Quite different than religion.
Kinda, but also no.
Simulation hypothesis has at least one problem in common with Boltzmann brains, as the evidence that leads to that conclusion also says you can't trust your reasoning process including that you have reached this conclusion.
The reason why you can't trust your reasoning process is different in each case, for Boltzmann brains it's that your entire history is as much a dice roll as anything else and therefore most likely just random noise.
With the simulation hypothesis, the you can't trust your reasoning process is that for any finite simulator, it's always going to be easier to simulate something simpler than reality, which again means it's always going to be wrong about something in that reality. If you posit we are more likely to be simulated beings than physical, it's much more likely that we're a lazy simulation than a high quality one, and a lazy simulation… well, something something stochastic parrot. (We don't know what qualia even is yet, and I've only heard one reasonable seeming idea for even testing it, so for all we know stochastic parrots are as capable of qualia as we are).
Simulation hypothesis has at least one problem in common with Boltzmann brains, as the evidence that leads to that conclusion also says you can't trust your reasoning process including that you have reached this conclusion.
The reason why you can't trust your reasoning process is different in each case, for Boltzmann brains it's that your entire history is as much a dice roll as anything else and therefore most likely just random noise.
With the simulation hypothesis, the you can't trust your reasoning process is that for any finite simulator, it's always going to be easier to simulate something simpler than reality, which again means it's always going to be wrong about something in that reality. If you posit we are more likely to be simulated beings than physical, it's much more likely that we're a lazy simulation than a high quality one, and a lazy simulation… well, something something stochastic parrot. (We don't know what qualia even is yet, and I've only heard one reasonable seeming idea for even testing it, so for all we know stochastic parrots are as capable of qualia as we are).
If you’re into that stuff and also like animes, recently I finished watching the “Pantheon” series and it has an even more interesting and somewhat more realistic plot compared to Matrix and super scary and exciting at the same time.
I’ll check it out! Thanks!
Yes! It is a very exciting concept in science fiction, indeed!
Some other similar ideas that come to mind are the multiverse quartz megaspheres in the second half of Diaspora and the message embedded in pi in Contact, the novel.
These are stories of course, but the cosmic microwave background radiation is a real life megastructure that encodes the remnants of the Big Bang and that is terrifyingly fascinating.
Another real world one is the giant foreboding galaxies in the background of the Angular Diameter Turnaround xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2622/
What other examples, fictional or real, are there of giant monumental pieces of information encoding?
Some other similar ideas that come to mind are the multiverse quartz megaspheres in the second half of Diaspora and the message embedded in pi in Contact, the novel.
These are stories of course, but the cosmic microwave background radiation is a real life megastructure that encodes the remnants of the Big Bang and that is terrifyingly fascinating.
Another real world one is the giant foreboding galaxies in the background of the Angular Diameter Turnaround xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2622/
What other examples, fictional or real, are there of giant monumental pieces of information encoding?
But even then, given a large universe, why would this be mathematically impossible? If galaxies formed evenly everywhere, couldn't this have happened by coincidence? Which theory is violated here?
Sorry my knowledge is a limited "The great courses Cosmology" course from 2009