Macrostructure in Observable Universe - unexpected.

[PB666]

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/astronomers-discover-humongous-structure-one-ninth-size-observable-universe

a cluster of nine massive galaxies bound together gravitationally, much like how our Milky Way is part of a cluster of galaxies. It was discovered after researchers identified a ring of nine gamma ray bursts (GRBs) that appeared to be at very similar distances from us, each around 7 billion light years away.

What are the possibilities here.

The first an most obvious is maybe these were at the center of expansion, the problem is that at 7 billion light years away they are two close, nor could they be at the edge of the universe since they would form a partially sphere covering a large part of the sky. Basically these cannot be true and the universe be 13 billion years old.

The conflict here is that based on our view of the universe, perfect euclidian flatness and uniform density of matter that the universe inflated for the tiniest fraction of a second before matter existed and expansion took place, as a consequence when the universe cool sufficiently space was expanding so rapidly outward that its momentum prevents matter from clumping nonuniformly. Of course now there are large structural webs in the universe some have described as the gravitation dance between matter and dark matter, but the scale of these structures is relatively small and extends betweens the modest galactic structures that we we see. Nothing so big as billions of light years across.

Seeing as I started this thread I get to throw in my conjecture.

These objects are closer to the original center of inflation but they are still relatively close to us. Since they were closer to the center their rate of inflation was marked slower, and because of this these objects are considerably older (they would have formed dense stars sooner, then 2nd and 3rd generations stars) and represent larger condensations of clusters, GRBs however represent the condensation of matter, and beyond them so much matter may have already condense that the GRBs are far less frequent and thus we don't see them. So I would predict that these represent an isoquant but because of expansion we can only see a part of it, the rest is traveling to fast away for us to see.

“A giant ring-like structure at 0.78 < z < 0.86 displayed by GRBsâ€Â, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, L. G. Balazs, Z. Bagoly, J. E. Hakkila I. Horvath, J. Kobori, I. R ÃŒÂacz and L. V. T ÃŒÂoth

Edited August 7, 2015 by PB666

[WestAir]

9 Galaxies 1/9th the size of the observable?

[K^2]

1) Structure of the universe is known not to be uniform. Uniform universe would be very bad news for us.

2) There isn't such a thing as "closer to the center". Every single point in the known universe was at the Big Bang, and is therefore, equally qualified to be the center. All of our data confirms that universe is inflating uniformly.

[More Boosters]

1) Structure of the universe is known not to be uniform. Uniform universe would be very bad news for us.

I'm interested in knowing what you mean by this.

[Camacha]

I'm interested in knowing what you mean by this.

I cannot speak for K squared, but if the universe would be absolutely uniform, different densities would not exist, so matter would not clump together to form galaxies and everything we know. I believe it is one of the mysteries we have yet to solve - where the irregularities in the original soup came from.

[PB666]

1) Structure of the universe is known not to be uniform. Uniform universe would be very bad news for us.

2) There isn't such a thing as "closer to the center". Every single point in the known universe was at the Big Bang, and is therefore, equally qualified to be the center. All of our data confirms that universe is inflating uniformly.

Yes but I am contesting that this is only a hypothesis based on incomplete information. I am making the counter arguement,

[K^2]

Even if it were just star distributions that were uniform, we'd have problems. There was a thread on why the sky is dark which partially addresses this. But it'd be problematic for stellar evolution as well. Sun is at least a second generation star. If it weren't, we wouldn't have life here.

Yes but I am contesting that this is only a hypothesis based on incomplete information. I am making the counter arguement,

It's a weak argument that goes against a ton of data and would require changes to GR, which is one of the most precisely tested theories. You'll need way more than a curious arrangement of a few galaxies to even start suggesting that inflation doesn't work the way we think it does.

[pincushionman]

There is only a 1 in 20,000 probability of the GRBs being in this distribution by chance.

Given that there have likely been far more than 20,000 GRBs that have happened in the history of the Universe, I'd say "by chance" doesn't sound so far-fetched.

[NFUN]

Given that there have likely been far more than 20,000 GRBs that have happened in the history of the Universe, I'd say "by chance" doesn't sound so far-fetched.

In many fields of science the standard of certainty is five sigma, a one of 3.5 million chance of the data being a fluke. You might be right.

[PB666]

Even if it were just star distributions that were uniform, we'd have problems. There was a thread on why the sky is dark which partially addresses this. But it'd be problematic for stellar evolution as well. Sun is at least a second generation star. If it weren't, we wouldn't have life here.

It's a weak argument that goes against a ton of data and would require changes to GR, which is one of the most precisely tested theories. You'll need way more than a curious arrangement of a few galaxies to even start suggesting that inflation doesn't work the way we think it does.

First off not to be nitpicky but it was clear I was talking about macroscalar (note title Macrostructural as you should interpret K2-we are not talking about super clusters or any scale structures of previously observed galaxies) or major subdivisions of the visible universe, to harp on that the universe is not uniform to the level a fleas fecal pellet is pedantic. Also I should point out that previous efforts to show spin in CMBR were later refuted indicating that the CMBR is largely uniform. But this is light from the opaque period, and these GRS are emmitting younger light which means they have formed macro structures shortly after the universe formed. So there is an ancient uniformity to the Universe even if it not uniform now.

(I should also point out that when I refer to Universe I am not handwaving arguments about infinite expanding space and all that blabber, see a scientist would admit there are other viable contending theories out there like multiverse and non-uniform osscilating universe. Since we are making assumptions about the universe based on the small percentage that we can see, even smaller if we factor in that this shell of visible light that reaches us is basically a time slice through that, we have to accept that the data may not be representative of the whole).

Second I consider the data flawed to begin with, the argument that inflation has made the universe completely uniform has the cart before the horse. Inflation was added to explain the uniformity that is seen, particularly in the CMBR, but its not the otherway around, if there is macroscalar structures that were beyond the visible range there is a problem. To understand what happens to matter after CMBR you need complex modeling and one key ingredient, symmetry, is missing (for example what if anti-matter exists within domains of the universe).

So I posit to you, if these macro structures exist, why would they form in only one direction relative to ourselves, If the inflation was completely circumspect then we should see the pattern arranged around us and of no particular age. I think the one good obvious answer is that inflation was not perfect, and that material density from the centermost part was higher than that on the outside. One good explanation is that EM concentrated at the center and diffused at the boundaries lower or that there was better conversion to matter. It could be something even more insidious, like the conversion to take matter versus dark energy was better at the center. According to recent models with large galaxies merge star formation falls off, and you see red shifting and basically a stellar old folks home. This could explain the faintness of stars in these major clusters that render them hard to see, so now they are places to look in the near infra red spectrum.

The papers conclusion, albeit tentative does not just say these come from just one part of the sky, but they are also about 7 billion light years from us, meaning that they originated from the same area and about the same time. Given that so many GRBS have occur, however this is not all possible arrangements of many, these are since intense observation began recently and so a 1/200 Bonnferroni correction need not be applied to alpha. If this particular pattern appearred for 2 years out of a 400 year study that would be a different story. In any case I think the four sigma used is 1/31540 so they still may have not reach criteria used for Higgs. Anyway it may represents new data that contradicts your hypothesis regarding the universe.

- - - Updated - - -

In many fields of science the standard of certainty is five sigma, a one of 3.5 million chance of the data being a fluke. You might be right.

Single publication alpha is 0.05, in many fields now (not 20 to 30 years ago) it needs to be corrected with bonnferoni's correction. 0.05/CF depending on classification. For example in the field of genome genetics the alpha may be 10^-9 since they may use millions of markers at a time. And there has now run in the literature a critique of overcorrection, the correction may not take into consideration linked elements or such. Multiple studies have been done on marginal probabilities (0.05 to the corrected probability threshold) and found that a sizable number in the low end of the probabilities were later shown to have association with more data provided, and many more were not-independent of associated values. The problem in most statistics is that type II errors are neither known or investigated unless they are highly suspected to begin with, and in many cases the power is not defined for rooting out sources of type II errors.

I can give a clean example of this, if your are collecting Energies of something from atom smashing and you collect energies in bins of say 0.1% along the 100% scale but by and large your assay for energy is say +/-3% and particles themselves have extensive variation, then you might be overassaying. If you divide your particles into 1000 bins then your correction threshold is 0.05/1000 but the problem is that if the there should have optimally been 20 bins, you set the criteria too low, and it should have been 0.05/20 or 1/400. You probably wont make a type I error, but if you are looking for new phenomena, there is a good chance you will leave alot on the table with type II errors.

IOW alpha needs to be set depending on criteria of the type of investigation, a sigma of 5 might be fine in one set of research and overkill in another.

[K^2]

the argument that inflation has made the universe completely uniform has the cart before the horse.

The argument is just the opposite. Universe is not uniform. That's well established. Nor does anyone expect it to be uniform. Nor does it need to be uniform to satisfy current expansion models. I have no idea where you're getting that nonsense from.

So I posit to you, if these macro structures exist, why would they form in only one direction relative to ourselves

They aren't. The only thing special about our location is that we happen to be at one of the density nodes. Because, you know, it's hard to have life discussing structure of the universe in the middle of an empty void.

[PB666]

The argument is just the opposite. Universe is not uniform. That's well established. Nor does anyone expect it to be uniform. Nor does it need to be uniform to satisfy current expansion models. I have no idea where you're getting that nonsense from.

Talking about the early universe again, not the universe in front of your computer monitor.

They aren't. The only thing special about our location is that we happen to be at one of the density nodes. Because, you know, it's hard to have life discussing structure of the universe in the middle of an empty void.

Our location is irrelevant, it could be any one of a many, if your location was inside the blob, they would be alot closer and they would be on all sides and we would be asking the question why these particular events in s sphere. And from a macroscale, looking at the universe we are not a particularly unique density node, there are bigger ones. (e.g. The Sun, Alpha Centauri, the black hole at the center of the galaxy, the black hole at the center of Andromeda, etc) and none of these density nodes are particularly interesting, and while there appear to be gas threads and webbing as far as we can see there appears to be nothing visible that is outstandingly different in our visible universe. However, if we are moving away from a central point of expansion as everything must, then we could ask the question do we see any differences. And the answer has been looking in any direction, there is nothing previously that would reveal itself as more central or exterior, the universe is moving away from us in all directions, and there has been not particularly revealing differences in the structure in any direction.

The point of this study might indicate larger structural changes than we have observed in the resolvable galaxies of our visible universe.

[YNM]

Actually, it's still possible that matter in the Universe is still aligning to create even larger structures. This ring, might be an early example, although I'd like to know how does each member of the ring looks like from the other, at the time we see them (lazy to do them myself). Additionally, I once read some article about the possibility of some kind of signature spherical density waves made out by dark matter concentration, linked to inflation, but I'll need to search it first, so don't trust me yet on this one.

[Steel]

if we are moving away from a central point of expansion as everything must, then we could ask the question do we see any differences

The issue here is twofold.

Firstly you're arguing with K^2 who is the most knowledgable physicist I've seen on these forums.

Secondly, you keep referring to the centre of the universe's expansion, which simply does not exist