Starship Asterisk*

From the AIP, Physics News Update #794 carried this item:

ELLIPSOIDAL UNIVERSE. A new theoretical assessment of data taken by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) suggests that the universe---at least that part of it that can be observed---is not spherically symmetric, but more like an ellipsoid.

The WMAP data has served to nail down some of the most important parameters in all of science, such as the age of the universe since the big bang (13.7 billion years), the time when the first atoms formed (380,000 years after the big bang), and the fractions of all available energy vested in the form of ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy.

One remaining oddity about the WMAP results, however, concerns the way in which portions of the sky contribute to the overall map of cosmic microwaves; samples of the sky smaller than one degree across, or at the degree level, or tens of degrees seem to be contributing radiation at expected levels.

Only the largest possible scale, that on the order of the whole sky itself (technical term: the quadrupole moment), seems to be under-represented.

Now Leonardo Campanelli of the University of Ferrara and his colleagues Paolo Cea and Luigi Tedesco at the University of Bari (all in Italy) have studied what happens to the quadrupole anomaly if one supposes that the shell from which the cosmic microwaves come toward earth is an ellipsoid and not a sphere.

This shell is called surface of last scattering since it corresponds to that moment in history when photons largely stopped scattering from charged particles when it became cool enough for many of the particles to bundle themselves into neutral atoms.

If the microwave shell is an ellipsoid with an eccentricity (non-sphericity) of about 1 %, then the WMAP quadrupole is exactly what it should be. This is not the first time a non-spherical universe has been suggested, but it is the first time the idea has been applied to the state-of-the-art WMAP data.

Historically an ellipsoidal universe would nicely parallel Johannes Kepler’s discovery that the planetary orbits were ellipses and not circles. This adjustment in astronomical thinking was just as revolutionary as Copernicus’ helio-centric model, and it helped Newton and others arrive at the idea of an inverse-square law for gravitational attraction.

What could have caused the universe as a whole to be ellipsoidal? Campanelli (campanelli@fe.infn.it), Cea and Tedesco say that a uniform magnetic field pervading the cosmos, or a defect in the fabric of spacetime, could bring about a nonzero eccentricity. (Campanelli, Cea, Tedesco, Physical Review Letters, 29 September 2006 )

The BB wasn't a symmetrical event? I would be more surprised if it were.

This post seems to imply a boundary, or the discovery of a boundary, a clear variation of previously contemplated multiple universe claims posted here in the past.

The visible universe is limited by 13.7 billion years; limited by it's age. If it is larger than what we can see; we probably will never see the boundary even it it has one. So; if there is multiple universes out there; we will never see them. unless; of course they are older than ours and their light enters into our universe.
Orin

Hello All

So far we see in space just a sand partical.

With that limited info,,,,,,,,,,,,,,very little we can conclude about the universe.


If and I say "IF" the Big Bang did occur it may be limited to the known universe. But! I disagree with the Big Bang, for the simple reason is that they say the universe is about 14 Gyrs. Many obejects out there are much much older and the known universe is not expanding and so forth.

harry wrote:But! I disagree with the Big Bang, for the simple reason is that they say the universe is about 14 Gyrs. Many obejects out there are much much older and the known universe is not expanding and so forth.

If there is anything out there older than 13.7Gyrs, we've never seen it. Nothing we've ever observed has given an age older than this, to my knowledge (results have been obtained in excess of this age, but were subsequently shown to be in error, so they don't count ).

Harry, after following your posts and replies, for at least a year, I have concluded that your arguments and opinions are rebellious in nature and intended to derail mainstream opinion. I wonder what events in your past have caused you to "go against the grain". However, your posts certainly add a color of life to this forum and they are interesting to read at times, to say the least. Despite the endless repetition of unfounded information you link to.

You seem locked into the concept of a recycling universe, yet you overlook the fact that there are undeniable observations that support a BB. Are you so bent on the rebellion that it has caused you to turn a blind eye to logic-why?

Has it occurred to you that maybe the BB has a role in a recycling universe or visa versa? Or that the "recycling" you refer to is just a byproduct of the universe rather than it being solely responsible for its continued existence. Even if you are correct- there had to be original elements to recycle. Where is your ORIGIN of original matter and energy?

harry wrote:Many obejects out there are much much older and the known universe is not expanding and so forth.

Harry, which objects are older than 13.7 by?

Martin wrote:Harry, after following your posts and replies, for at least a year, I have concluded that your arguments and opinions are rebellious in nature and intended to derail mainstream opinion. I wonder what events in your past have caused you to "go against the grain". However, your posts certainly add a color of life to this forum and they are interesting to read at times, to say the least. Despite the endless repetition of unfounded information you link to.

You seem locked into the concept of a recycling universe, yet you overlook the fact that there are undeniable observations that support a BB. Are you so bent on the rebellion that it has caused you to turn a blind eye to logic-why?

Has it occurred to you that maybe the BB has a role in a recycling universe or visa versa? Or that the "recycling" you refer to is just a byproduct of the universe rather than it being solely responsible for its continued existence. Even if you are correct- there had to be original elements to recycle. Where is your ORIGIN of original matter and energy?

No time to proof read this to see if it makes sense -sorry

Harry opinions are based on issues with his own mortality. He most likely also builds some type of monuments to add permanence to his existence.

Show an illustration, in a top down view of an "ellipsoid with an eccentricity (non-sphericity) of about 1 %".

As we look farther out into the universe we also look farther back in time due to the time it takes light to travel to us. So when we look at M31 Andromeda, being 2 million light years away, we see it as and where it was 2 million years ago, but it is moving. Has anyone tried to correctly model the known visible universe as it exists now given that the galaxies that we see, that are on the order of GLY away haven't been where we see them for billions of years?

FieryIce wrote:Show an illustration, in a top down view of an "ellipsoid with an eccentricity (non-sphericity) of about 1 %".

http://www.mustangmods.com/ims/u/1854/5052/103526.jpg

Ellipse with exactly .01 eccentricity.

Note: My image hosting site might have skewed it.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:The BB wasn't a symmetrical event? I would be more surprised if it were.

I am not an astronomer or anything like that, but I think it is very clear that the universe is not symmetrical.

Hello All

And people say that I'm confused.

Its only a matter of time that we shall see past the 13.7 Gyr mark. Than we shall talk about the origins. Without that observation the BB people will alway stick by their guns.



As for obejects out there being ellitical,,,,,,,,why not!

The universe is a word that means "all" and therfore no shape to it.

harry wrote:Without that observation the BB people will alway stick by their guns.

You are saying that the current theory will persist until there is new evidence. The thing that confuses me is the purpose of stating that here; everyone here knows that that is how scientists are.

hello Confused

The current theory will persist whether we like it or not.

Very hard to show old dogs new tricks.

Evidence and observations at the end of the day will rule over the models.

The Big Bang is under fire by many cosmologists. They are still a minority, but growing very quickly. Funding in these areas has been limited to the Big Bang theory.

In the next few years we shall see more info and new ideas.

harry wrote:Very hard to show old dogs new tricks.

Dogs? I thought these these forums are about astronomy.

Hello Confused

Its an old saying,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,with a smile.

=======================================

as for the shape

read this link

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Don't worry Confused, Harry has a problem with logic, and stating the obvious.

To counter Harrys point about seeing past 13.7Gyr, as far as I know we could now if there was anything to see. If galaxies as bright as those in the nearby Universe exist before 13.7Gyr ago the HST UDF should have seen them. The fact that we see galaxies get smaller and smaller the further back you go, seems to indicate pretty strongly that there was a begining, whether it was 13 or 16 Gyr.

I had a link on another post which amply demonstrated this, the researchers found a hard limit beyond which there we essentially no bright galaxies. When the JWST goes up this will almost certainly confirm this.

Hello Astro

Time will tell mate.

Problem with logic,,,,,,,,,my "---"

As for stating the obvious, man have you got it wrong.

But! I can understand where you are coming from. Brain washed by other Big Bangers.

I had similar discussions many years ago.
When they observed 6 Gyrs in deep field. I was told that when we see over 13Gyrs into deep field we shall see the birth of the universe.
Than when we did, many cosmologists said ooops we did not expect what we saw. Than it was patch up time for the Big Bangers.

So please keep your fine comments to yourself, and focus on the discussion.

When they observed 6 Gyrs in deep field. I was told that when we see over 13Gyrs into deep field we shall see the birth of the universe.
Than when we did, many cosmologists said ooops we did not expect what we saw. Than it was patch up time for the Big Bangers.

Unlikely Harry, the inferred age of the Universe has been coming DOWN over time. Only ten years ago the excepted age was 15-18Gyr, so people would have been fine with seeing galaxies at 13 Gyr. Its only in the last 3 years that 13.7 has become the accepted most commonly used value. Thats for two reasons, WMAP and the HST key project, which have reduced the errors on meaured parameters such as H0.

Hello Astro

Thats a better comment.

Not that I agree with it.

Have you read WMAP?

I have emailed WMAP several comments and issues.

They are yet to come back to me.



In one of their sites they say that all the elements above lithium are produced in Stars. The very light elements produced by the Big Bang.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

What hog wash, but! it's not all hog wash. There are some interesting reading.

I'm not going to let it rest. Mate whatch for the next few years.

If you do not question the flow than you are pulled into the current thinking.

Not thats bad, its an easier ride.

astro_uk wrote:Don't worry Confused, Harry has a problem with logic, and stating the obvious.

Yes, I know. I have not seen much of what Harry has said but I get the impression that Harry is one of those that says eccentric things to get attention. They often use their intelligence to be ignorant. Although their intentional disregard of truth makes useful discussion impossible, sometimes I can't resist the temptation to try (to have a useful discussion).

Hello Confused

That may be true.

But! what part do you think, I have no logic.