A Fractal Distribution of Matter in the Universe May Topple the Big Bang. If So, What's Next?

by mgmirkin | June 25, 2008 at 02:47 am
1330 views | 24 Recommendations | 17 comments

Photos

Dark Matter Distribution (Visualization)

Dark Matter Distribution (Visualization)

see larger image

uploaded by mgmirkin

The Big Bang currently rules supreme in the sciences. But for how long can this flight of fancy survive in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary? A recent discovery threatens to overturn the tables in the temple of the queen of the sciences.

A recent article published in New Scientist brings controversy and a sense of impending doom to astronomers and cosmologists. One wouldn't think that something as superficially simple as fractals could scare them so.

But, when those fractals are on universal scales it tells astronomers that their pet theory may be in serious trouble.

[A] fractal matter distribution out to such huge scales undermines the standard model of cosmology. According to the accepted story of cosmic evolution, there simply hasn't been enough time since the big bang nearly 14 billion years ago for gravity to build up such large structures.

This issue has been a looming threat to the Big Bang since at least as early as 1999.

The standard models for describing the big bang and the evolution of the Universe are called Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models. Their starting point was general relativity, the theory of gravity published by Einstein in 1915.

...

It was Einstein and Friedmann who first made the assumption that the Universe is both homogeneous-the same in all places-and isotropic-the same in all directions. This is known as the Cosmological Principle.
If this dissenting view is correct and the Universe doesn't become smoothed out on the very largest scales, the consequences for cosmology are profound. "We're lost," says Coles. "The foundations of the big bang models would crumble away. We'd be left with no explanation for the big bang, or galaxy formation, or the distribution of galaxies in the Universe."

Put simply, if the results are upheld and a fractal distribution of matter in the universe exists then a primary tenet of the Big Bang model (inflation and homogeneity) goes out the window. Those may well be the straws that break's the camel's back, for the Big Bang model.

There is, of course, the usual dissent amongst scientists. Some claim that the fluctuations observed by Labini et al are too small to be of significance.

Sylos Labini and Pietronero, along with physicists Nikolay Vasilyev and Yurij Baryshev ... say if the universe does become homogeneous at some point, it has to be on a scale larger than a staggering 300 million light years across. That's because even at that scale, they still observe large fluctuations – a cluster here, a void there – in the matter distribution. Most cosmologists interpret such fluctuations as being no more significant than small waves on the surface of the sea, but Sylos Labini and colleagues say that these are more like tsunamis.

Others adopt a less scientifically rigorous defense of current theory.

Many cosmologists find fault with their analysis, largely because a fractal matter distribution out to such huge scales undermines the standard model of cosmology.

Unfortunately that is frighteningly reminiscent of Einstein's own apparent contempt of disconfirming data.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!

Albert Einstein

A dangerous doctrine indeed! One cannot set aside disconfirming data simply because one does not wish to be wrong. That's simply not scientific.

Science is about evidence and science is about falsification of incorrect hypotheses. Has the Einsteinian revolution gone too far? Some have called for a return to the scientific method of Isaac Newton and the "real science" of Karl Popper's falsifiability, whilst retreating from abstract mathematics with endless adjustable parameters that seems to be unfalsifiable (hence unscientific) and from probabilistic science.

When SDSS data was released in 2004, physicists David Hogg of New York University and Daniel Eisenstein of the University of Arizona, both in the US, published an analysis of 55,000 luminous red galaxies suggesting that the fractal pattern smoothed out at scales over 200 million light years.

But Sylos Labini and Pietronero were not convinced. They believed that the apparent smoothing was an illusion caused by weak statistics – the smoothing seemed to occur at the largest scales the survey was capable of studying, where there were too few large regions to be able to reliably compare their densities, they said. Only a bigger map could resolve the debate.

Now, SDSS has released its sixth round of data, which plots the locations of roughly 800,000 galaxies and 100,000 quasars, bright objects powered by violent supermassive black holes.

Huge scales

According to their latest paper, which has been submitted to Nature Physics, Sylos Labini and Pietronero, along with physicists Nikolay Vasilyev and Yurij Baryshev of St Petersburg State University in Russia, argue that the new data shows that the galaxies exhibit an explicitly fractal pattern up to a scale of about 100 million light years.

With newer and more extensive data sets available, Labini et al have concluded that the fractal pattern is in fact present on the much larger scales and does not "smooth out," as other researchers have suggested, at the largest scales.

The team maintains that orthodox cosmologists are mistaken. "What they are seeing is an artefact of the way they analyse galaxy surveys," says Sylos Labini. In conventional calculations of how close to homogeneity the Universe is-the two-point correlation function, for example-astronomers look for departures from the average density of the Universe. This necessarily assumes that there is such a thing as average density ... "If the Universe is fractal, however, it has no characteristic scale," says Sylos Labini. "Everything, including the average density, changes with scale so the concept is meaningless. It's not surprising that people find the Universe is homogeneous when homogeneity is one of their basic assumptions."

To avoid this, Pietronero and his team calculate the extent of galaxy clustering by using statistical methods that take account of the properties of fractals. The simplest technique is to measure the number of neighbours around a chosen galaxy within a radius R. In fractal maths, this number is proportional to RD, where D, the fractal dimension, can have any value between 0 and 3. When D is 3, galaxies are distributed evenly within a sphere-the conventional view. But when D is not a whole number-fractal, that is-the galaxies cease to be distributed evenly.

From their measurements, Pietronero and his colleagues estimate that D is about 2.1, implying that the Universe is fractal on scales up to 300 million light years. There is a proviso, however. "We should not forget the invisible `dark' matter, which is thought to account for at least 90 per cent of the mass in the Universe," says Sylos Labini.

If the voids we see, apparently empty of galaxies, are in fact full of dark matter, then the Universe may still be homogeneous and FRW models will apply. "However, it seems very unlikely that the clustering of ordinary light-emitting matter and dark matter would be completely different," says Sylos Labini. If, on the other hand, the voids are empty of dark matter and the distribution of dark matter is roughly the same as that of ordinary matter, then the Universe is even more inhomogeneous than the luminous matter indicates.

If true, this becomes a problem for the standard model and its "Big Bang" theory.

Is the matter in the universe arranged in a fractal pattern? A new study of nearly a million galaxies suggests it is – though there are no well-accepted theories to explain why that would be so.

...

That would leave cosmologists without a working model, like acrobats without a net.

...

What's at stake if the universe is indeed a fractal on the largest scales? Besides a radical rethink of the laws and history of the cosmos ...

To be blunt, does anyone care about a wager over a case of wine when the future of the cosmos (and astronomical / cosmological science funding) is at stake?

If the "Big Bang" goes down, and takes all or part of the standard model with it, the big question is "what next?" Are there any contenders to the throne that can deal with the new data in addition to the old?

Some plasma physicists and electrical engineers think they're up to the challenge! A radically different paradigm known as Plasma Cosmology, based upon the known physics of plasmas in the lab scaled up to cosmic dimensions (according to the appropriate scaling laws, since not every process involved scales at precisely the same rate as the rest), has been slowly progressing along an alternate path to understanding the cosmos without having to invent "new physics" with every third press release.

With firsthand experience of electrical phenomena, plasma cosmologists can offer concrete and testable models addressing the puzzles and contradictions of popular theories. They know that the magnetic fields in deep space trace macrocosmic electric currents like a cosmic wiring diagram. And they understand that plasma phenomena are scalable up to intergalactic dimensions: under similar conditions, what occurs in the laboratory can be seen in space.
(Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott, The Electric Universe, 2007, pp. 26-27)

More to the point, fractal distribution of plasma filaments throughout the universe are a prediction of the plasma universe.

As plasma cosmologists have noted, the universe exhibits fractal patterns: the patterns repeat at different scales from small to large. The scalability of plasma phenomena thus means that a fractal universe is a prediction of plasma cosmology while it is inimical to the Big Bang model.40
(Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott, The Electric Universe, 2007, pp. 27)
[40] A fractal distribution implies areas empty of matter—voids between galaxies and clusters—will appear at ever larger scales. Plasma cosmology, unlike the Big Bang, has unlimited time to form these structures. See A. Gefter, “Don’t mention the F word,” New Scientist, 10 March 2007, pp.30-33. “Einstein’s equations would be thrown out first, followed by the Big Bang and expansion of the universe.”
(Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott, The Electric Universe, 2007, pp. 27)

Plasma processes scale over many orders of magnitude: from microscopic electrical processes to novelty plasma lamps, there are also the Io-Jupiter "flux tube" (carrying a million Amp current) and the "magnetic flux ropes" (a 650,000 Amp current) connecting Earth's upper atmosphere to the sun the sun and vice versa, plasma even scales to the magnitude of the Double-Helix Nebula and to galaxies formed along filaments (of plasma) like beads on a string.

The simple fact of the matter is that plasma is scalable, and tends to form filamentary self-similar (fractal) structures across many orders of magnitude. This can be seen rather simply in the fractal nature of Lichtenberg figures, a type of electrical discharge, or in novelty plasma lamps.

While some naysayers poo-poo the idea, claiming that the field of plasma physics or plasma cosmology has made "no progress" in a quantitative understanding the universe, that claim hasn't stopped researchers from publishing peer-reviewed papers on the subject and elaborating the good matches between supercomputer simulations and actual astrophysical data or making falsifiable predictions about the cosmos.

Several qualitative / conceptual papers papers or articles explain Plasma Cosmology:

The Cosmic Power Grid and Flexible Thinking and Cosmic Electricity (a talk given at Eglin Airforce Base in California) both non-fiction pieces presented by science fiction author James P. Hogan, as well as Plasma Cosmology, and Not With a Bang [Part A & Part B] both by notable Los Alamos plasma physics researcher and senior IEEE member Anthony Peratt.

A few notable quantitative papers detailing results include:

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets and Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, among others.

A considerably earlier monograph that, while largely ignored throughout most of last century and only receiving experimental confirmation by satellite in 1973, may still be prescient and highly useful is the 1908 work by Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland: The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903. In particular, Chapter VI. On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae is most helpful in unraveling several processes taking place within the bounds of our solar system.

Is it time for the abstract mathematicians of the Standard Model to hand the keys to the temple of the queen of the sciences back to the experimentalists of Plasma Cosmology?

Perhaps we can yet salvage the possibility of a "knowable" universe!

See also:
Big Bang vs. Plasma Cosmology: Competing Approaches to Understanding the Universe
An Argument for the Consideration of Electrodynamics in Cosmology

recommend This comment thread is now closed
PEP
PEP
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 03:46 on June 25th, 2008

mgmirkin, I like this story. It's good stuff. Fractals are way cool.

0
mgmirkin

Indeed! Thanks for the high marks... :) Appreciated!

Controversy is amusing too, at times. In this case, yet another challenge to the Big Bang. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

The Big Bang is already a patchwork of kludges to fix discordant data ("dark matter," "dark energy" currently make up about 96% or more of the universe, making the universe only about 4% knowable?), and various press releases lately have had disconfirming results for the standard model of stellar evolution.

Both a pulsar in the wrong kind of orbit around the wrong kind of star and a binary pair that's apparently considerably less homogeneous than expected both immediately spring to mind. And those are just two from about the last month or so!

When every other press release is "shock and awe" or "shock and dismay" shouldn't we be asking whether something is considerably wrong with astronomy? Predictive success is supposed to be the pinnacle of science not "novel" stuff that was completely unexpected or specifically excluded by the models.

Granted, it's really only in the unsure "in between" places that new knowledge can be gained. So on that hand, it's nice to see stuff that isn't already explained 'cause it's a chance to learn something new!

Cheers,

~Michael Gmirkin


Rob Walker
Rob Walker
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 04:09 on June 25th, 2008

mgmirkin, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
mgmirkin

Thx :)

~Michael Gmirkin


Tomitheos
Tomitheos
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 06:59 on June 25th, 2008

mgmirkin, very cool theories!

I like this story and the Einstein quote, it's good stuff!

0
mgmirkin

Yeah, I was kind of surprised the first time I heard that quote. I'm not sure exactly what context it was uttered in. I'd be interested to know. Though I seem to recall there was another controversial statement when asked what he'd say if God didn't believe in the theory of relativity (or something like that). The alleged pithy reply was "I'd feel sorry for our Lord... The theory is correct!" Again, not sure in what context that quote came or the veracity (it appears anecdotally in a few sources, though I couldn't find a reliable source on it).

It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out. IE, if the SDSS analysis showing fractal distribution is upheld independently by other researchers or with further, more detailed data. Or if it's shown to be some kind of aberration or miscalculation.

Though in other news, there's been occasional talk of an "axis of evil" or a "handedness" to the universe, which would also throw in a monkey wrench to stop up the works. Still nothing conclusive on that front though.

But if I hear of anything... I'd bet you guys will be the first to know. ;o) Second-hand of course. =oP

Maireid Sullivan
Maireid Sullivan
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 14:45 on June 25th, 2008

mgmirkin, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Brilliant analysis and presentation- per all of your contributions, Michael!

and, who can argue with your comment, "One cannot set aside disconfirming data simply because one does not wish to be wrong. That's simply not scientific."

After reading your statement, above: "Plasma processes scale over many orders of magnitude: from microscopic electrical processes to novelty plasma lamps, there are also the Io-Jupiter "flux tube" (carrying a million Amp current) and the "magnetic flux ropes" (a 650,000 Amp current) connecting Earth's upper atmosphere to the sun the sun and vice versa, plasma even scales to the magnitude of the Double-Helix Nebula and to galaxies formed along filaments (of plasma) like beads on a string."

Can you speak to the possibility of 'tapping into' those electric currents from the earth?


0
mgmirkin

Sounds like a good idea, but probably not practical as the currents are probably distributed over rather large areas. I don't know, maybe somehow charged particles flowing in the solar-terrestrial "magnetic flux ropes." But they tend to move around, sometimes very quickly... So, there's not any good way to necessarily pin them down in one place to get any kind of "collector" to them reliably, etc.

“The substorm behaved quite unexpectedly," says Vassilis Angelopoulos, the mission's principal investigator at the University of California, Los Angeles. "The auroras surged westward twice as fast as anyone thought possible, crossing 15 degrees of longitude in less than one minute. The storm traversed an entire polar time zone, or 400 miles, in 60 seconds flat.”
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

0
Maireid Sullivan

fast ...like a flash of lightening. :)

0
mgmirkin

Happened to be looking at the right moment. ;)

One thing that I might note would be that if we could somehow control the path of current flow (say by artificially ionizing a channel or providing a safe conductive path to ground) it might be possible to somehow tap the "power line."

For some reason my brain suddenly shuffled its file system and this little gem popped out from a little ways back:

(Laser triggers electrical activity in thunderstorm for the first time)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414082517.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/osoa-lte041008.php

While it's not technically the first time man has artificially triggered lightning (that honor goes to Allan McCollum, modern artist, etc.), it was the first time for this particular method (okay, it was the first time it got wide press; someone else had reported it in the literature some time before, though I can't find the reference at the moment).

Anyway, if we could use pulsed lasers of sufficient intensity and precision to artificially ionize a sufficient lightning pathway from cloud to ground (or in this case auroral oval to ground, or near-space to ground), it might be possible to divert the flow of charged particles along a different pathway to some predetermined destination capable of acquiring, storing, and distributing said energy. I don't think we're terribly near anything sophisticated or reliable enough to do such a thing yet. But improvement in industrial processes, laser precisions and output seems to be moving along at a decent pace. So, it may not be entirely out of the question at some point.

That's one of the few ways my puny ape brain can conceive of "jacking in" to the power grid, locally. Which isn't to say there might not be other ways of doing it...

Guess that's it for now...
~Michael Gmirkin

0
Maireid Sullivan

Well, if we can think it we can create it. - someone said that, didn't they? :) ...and you make it sound perfectly possible.


I wonder if HAARP is doing something like this for the "control weather by 2025" agenda. I mean, the best technologies came out of military R&D, so, –it might be worth finding out who has the budget - and talking to them to see if we can learn something about 'cutting-edge' R&D in this field. It's very exciting stuff!

I wonder if the great people at www.ted.com are booking lectures by these experts. I'll ask them!



0
mgmirkin

Well, making it sound simple is easy. Making it work is the harder part. ;o)

And electricity probably isn't the most cooperative beast to work with either... Especially in the hands of Mother Nature!

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin


0
colesakick

Another great contribution Michael!

 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

One point I’d like to make is that in order for nature to provide fractal structures at all scales it HAS to be layered on a fractal grid. At the quantum scale everything hangs on a fabric that provides these recursive patterns we call fractals. Nowhere have I seen a good explanation for why electromagnetic forces should form in fractal patterns except for in the Aether Physics Model as presented by David Thomson and Jim Bourassa. Read here about how aether units provide the substructure of all things http://www.16pi2.com/chapter_4_secrets_of_the_aether.htm

I bought the book "Secrets of the Aether," pricey but worth every cent. It really turns the field of physics on its ear and pull reality into a much sharper focus.

0
mgmirkin

Well, plasma scaling has a lot to do with the issue, in my opinion (and possibly that of plasma cosmologists, though I don't deign to speak for them, merely in support of further rigorous investigation of their work).

IE, plasma scales such that under similar conditions, similar structures will form across a wide range of scales. At least 26 orders of magnitude, if I recall correctly?

Though there may be minor differences, as not all aspects of the system scale at precisely the same rate, the structures formed will still apparently have good similarity over the scales at which it's observed.

Cheers,

~Michael Gmirkin

Smile
Smile
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 19:43 on June 27th, 2008

mgmirkin, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Yes we're starting to hear the death Knell for the Big Bang Theory....and I think the guy who coined the expression "Big Bang" actually died recently.

0
mgmirkin

Sorry to hear it. Always sad to lose another soul...

I care little for fences or on which side of one someone sits, so long as a kindly discussion is possible.

Wasn't the term "Big Bang" intended ironically? But adopted anyway... As I recall. Which is itself rather ironic.

Cheers,

~Michael Gmirkin


0
Smile

Sir Fred Hoyle first used the expression 'big bang' as criticism of new cosmological theory - then it was (ironically) taken up by proponents and coined as "Big Bang Theory"

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from