Axis of Evil (CMB)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)
>Some anomalies in the background radiation have been reported which are aligned with the plane of the Solar System, which contradicts the Copernican principle

Thoughts on the axis of evil?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=F2Fxt_yCrcc
youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=24m40s
aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Ashbyarticle.pdf
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17814/that-10km-day-error-predicted-if-gps-satellite-clocks-not-corrected-for-relativi
youtube.com/watch?v=bnn46jvbF0o
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's in line with most other discoveries in the past decade or so that point to an unnatural universe. Really the last nails in the coffin of naturalism have been well and truly hammered in by this point and all that's left is to ask why we seem to be in a highly unnatural universe. Simulation? Multiverse? Hologram? Who knows, all we know at this point is that far too many "coincidences" are starting to crop up

>It's in line with most other discoveries in the past decade or so that point to an unnatural universe
I'm interested. What other discoveries are you referring to?

mainly the Mandela effect

Doesnt matter. We must conquer Space to Discover the real truth about Our universe. We are literally wrong about everything, and i can prove this when we colonize the NeXT solar system. Screencap this. Also god is in the rain

A lot of fine tuning problems are starting to crop up in physics where things we would've expected based on the mathematical models we use can't be experimentally verified, leaving us with big gaps where things just seem to magically cancel out to the precise values needed to create our universe with absolutely no real reason behind why they'd do that other than appealing to the anthropic principle.

The Higgs Boson mass in particular is a big one.

youtube.com/watch?v=F2Fxt_yCrcc

Here's Nima Armani-Hakmed talking about it and in fact he's one of the guys saying we might need to do away with the idea that our universe was the inevitable result of natural laws acting as expected. If we roll a ball down a hill to a valley with a few peaks, what we expect is that the ball will settle at one of the dips. Instead what we're finding is that our universe rests on one of the peaks, a highly improbible position for it to be. Why did the ball stop in such an improbable place? It's a big issue in physics at the moment because the LHC basically ended up in the "nightmare scenario" where it proved the Higgs existed but NONE of the particles predicted by Supersymmetry, the leading theory to even out all these "fine tunings". No we're left in a situation with all these crazy values and no rational reason they would ever be that way in a natural universe.

I thought you were being serious, until you used the Mandela effect as your primary piece of evidence.

>People misremember things and are too proud to admit it
>People phase from one timeline to another
Which is more likely?

Either, as any theory of science, it is merely a (albeit very well thought out) model of how the universe works ... or, well, we can only observe a universe such as ours, if we are in said universe. So there really isn't any real mystery behind why the universe "seems" to be as fine tuned as it is, also considering it is our models, which must be fine tuned. It's really the other way around, if you think about it. Not the universe is fine tuned, but our models need to be to correctly predict anything meaningful.

Appealing to anthropics isn't really optimal though. Ideally you'd like to say "It is this way because the natural laws of the universe dictate it had to be this way" and up until we discovered the universe was accelerating it did look like we were going in that direction. Taking a step back and saying "It is this way because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to observe it" is unappealing because almost by necessity it means you need to appeal to a multiverse where there is every possible configuration of values and we just ended up in this one. That's kind of messy.

Could this be related to the Sloan Great Wall or at least similar to it in that it's just a coincidence?

>If we roll a ball down a hill to a valley with a few peaks, what we expect is that the ball will settle at one of the dips. Instead what we're finding is that our universe rests on one of the peaks, a highly improbible position for it to be.
This hasn’t been proven to a satisfactory level of uncertainty, and the theory isn’t that it rests on a ‘peak’ that it rests on (which, when using this analogy for energy levels is the activation energy required to transition to another energy level), but a valley that may be higher than the lowest valley (actual energy states).

>Taking a step back and saying "It is this way because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to observe it" is unappealing because almost by necessity it means you need to appeal to a multiverse where there is every possible configuration of values and we just ended up in this one. That's kind of messy.
You don’t need to appeal to a multiverse actually existing, only to the possibility that if physics were different their may not be life to consider these things.

>we
libtard detected

rebcunt detected
fuck off back to

>all we know at this point is that far too many "coincidences" are starting to crop up
Normally this implies a deeper physical reason, not some stupid magic simulation.
I don't see why holography would imply the axis of evil: I assume you don't actually understand holography.

I thought /pol/ was all about shouting the word 'we'

>I don't see why holography would imply the axis of evil:
Never said it did, I was talking about the greater problem of naturalism being eroded and that the axis of evil was part of that by apparently defying the Copernican principle.

University is electric.

How ca you specify what is or is not a natural value of a parameter without a probability measure on the space of values?
Even if you think the Higgs mass is natural, anthropic arguments explain the hierarchy problem.

>we just ended up in this one
This is why weak anthropic is the superior idea because it doesn't need any of that multiverse shit. It's not that we ended up in this one, it's that this configuration is the only one we could have possibly developed in to ask that question. It doesn't matter if the multiverse exists or not to make that observation.

>no rational reason they would ever be that way in a natural universe.
We already know conciousness has an effect of the physical universe. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that things exist because something wants things to exist.

Let me tell you, it sure was! Those lectures were sizzling.

>what is the anthropic principle

Every single "it is unlikely that" argument assumes that this is the only universe that has ever existed.

It's very possible there are large number with slightly different physical constant values or whatever.

The multiverse theory is unpalatable. There's also the issue you need a multiverse theory that supports the creation of multiple universes with varying properties, inflation doesn't cut it in that regard because it creates a multiverse of universes with the same properties, nullifying any statistical benefit of having more than one universe.

>with the same properties
BS
youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=24m40s

Consciousness does not have a special effect on the universe, dumbass.

It collapses the wave function

not the user you're replying to
are you referring to the double slit stuff?

Yes

has that been investigated any further or just acknowledged as some philosophical fun fact and abandoned?

There are two possibilities that I am aware of; the first is that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, which was also the result of the Michel-Morely experiment.
The second is contests that what scientist think is the Microwave Background Radiation is in fact just microwave energy coming off Earth's oceans. If this is true it is a massive and extremely embarrassing blunder, but not as bad as 1 (see above).

The waveform does not collapse because of "consciousness". It collapses because there's no non-invasive way to measure, so the act of measuring changes the waveform.

(((You)))

>someone finds out that something isn't perfectly homogeneous or doesn't hold up to a faulty view of how things work.
>In other news, "Scientists say that water is wet, but what do they know?"

>What is quantum bayesianism, the post

How does the Michelson-Morley experiment suggest we're the center of the universe?

It's not the Mandella effect, that's not more of a laymans explanation of what's actually happening.. the reality is the past doesn't exist, so the past can and does actually change in the present. The past can also be different to two people or groups of people at the same time for short periods of time before it is resolved. There is no real explanation of why this happens though.. collective consciousness? cosmic consciousness?

The Michelson-Morley experiment can be interpreted in one of two ways; either the speed of light is constant in all reference frames or the Earth is not moving. Both of these are admittedly insane, but oddly enough when you work it all out it is the latter that has the least amount of assumptions involved i.e. no dark matter, time dilation, black holes etc. etc. etc.
In order to prove relativity once and for all we need to record the speed of light on mars or some distant planet, until we do it will remain just a theory.

I thought every point in the universe was the center since everything is moving away from everything else.

Have you ever heard the idiom 'jumping to conclusions'?

Except experiments have been performed where the particles are measured the exact same way, one with which way information preserved and one with which way information destroyed. The particles still create the interference pattern if they've been measured but the information about which slit they went through becomes destroyed, how do you explain that with the theory that it's the detector causing the collapse via interaction?

I've never seen someone's point drop from 'potentially interesting' to 'completely bumfuck retarded' over the scope of two posts

Probably because you're quoting two different people

>just a theory
Unironically kys

Yes, contemporary cosmology is almost entirely bullshit. None of the theories fits the data. It's wank.

Without the rest of the multiverse there to absorb the overwhelming probability of uninhabitable universes, that doesn't solve anything.

Michelson & Morley considered that possibility -- which is why they repeated the experiment several times as the Earth moved around the Sun. The Earth's velocity changes month-to-month relative to other bodies; Doppler shift and stellar aberration prove that.

Relativity accounts nicely for the motion of atomic clocks, even those in the GPS satellites. What are satellites but tiny independent "planets"? They can't ALL "not be moving" at the same time.

I could also mention measurements of the time-delays from interplanetary probes. Passing through the Sun's gravity-well changes things. I could mention a 100 other experiments -- all of which rule out "Earth doesn't move".
Peddle your Phlogiston somewhere else!

>the dominant theory is bullshit, therefore my bullshit theory isn't

>This hasn’t been proven to a satisfactory level of uncertainty
To that analogy alone: just how mathematically illiterate are you? It is _almost certain_ that the ball would end up in a valley, because the set of peaks is meagre (in a measure theory sense).

> It is _almost certain_ that the ball would end up in a valley,
Or on a plateau, if they also exist in that geography.

>The multiverse theory is unpalatable.
aka "I don't like it so it's wrong"

explain how a multiverse is less likely to be true than someone creating our universe for the sake of life in our solar system.

Any source for that claim? And it better not be about quantum waves and measurement, you brainlet.

But that experiment has nothing to do with consciousness.

>Properties are the same across our universe

Doubt it. Physics being constant across space and time will disappear in 50 years.

Fucking lol this board truly has gone to shit

Yeah, the scope of things when including the unobservable universe is wack. Just google the estimated minimun size of the whole fucking universe and pretend you know anything about the universe.

no u for not understanding what he meant, you reek of reddit

>The Earth's velocity changes month-to-month relative to other bodies;
Not if its not moving it doesn't, then it is the other bodies whose motion changes relative to it. This is precisely what we are discussing.
>Relativity accounts nicely for the motion of atomic clocks, even those in the GPS satellites
No it really doesn't. Look up the Sagnac Experiment ad the fact that Relativity has nothing to do with GPS to find out why.
>Passing through the Sun's gravity-well changes things.
Perhaps there are other reasons why this would occur, but either way your statement is vague and not highly specific. Please peddle your GPS Relativity Fraud on another board.

aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Ashbyarticle.pdf

> the predicted effects are incorporated into the GPS. Important
relativistic effects on GPS satellite clocks include gravitational frequency shifts and time
dilation. These effects are so large that if not accounted for, the system would not be effective
for navigation.

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17814/that-10km-day-error-predicted-if-gps-satellite-clocks-not-corrected-for-relativi

youtube.com/watch?v=bnn46jvbF0o

Everything seems coincidental because we're here to experience it. We weren't around to document the billion trillion failed universes where things didn't work out. Check mate.

>GPS Relativity Fraud
Anti-Einstein autist at it again.

I swear to God, the multiverse shit becoming a meme is even worse than the dumb Big Bang meme. Physicists need to break out of their Aristotelian shell and get over their aversion to 'actualised' infinities.

this is why pop sci is harmful to science

can anyone explan what does this picture show? what are the red spots? is this the intensity of background radiation? relative to where? how do we get such map of the entire universe?

Deeper level which the Universe is in , also there is a bookcase about 20-400 times(which actually means its probably a trillion times larger than the universe) larger than the universe down there, seriously...also god is angry with the bent MI5 police in london

>The second is contests that what scientist think is the Microwave Background Radiation is in fact just microwave energy coming off Earth's oceans.
No. Those claims are deeply, deeply fucking stupid. First and foremost because the CMB has been measured far away from the Earth, twice and those maps agree very well. There is no way to explain that by saying it's the oceans. The claims as described are fucking stupid, they require the microwave sky to be *completely* dark because the person making them is too fucking stupid to realise the "monopoly" is just the average brightness of the whole sky and if there are any sources that is non-zero. But we know this isn't true of course.

Secondly it isn't fucking true, we know the CMB is real and cosmic. Look at this gif, this shows the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect for a galaxy cluster. The SZ effect was predicted where the CMB photons pass though a cluster with lots of hot plasma, the plasma would up-scatter the CMB photons distorting the CMB spectrum. The result is lower CMB temperatures in the direction of the cluster at low frequencies (where the photons were scattered from) and a brighter CMB at high frequencies (where the photons were scattered to). Now none of this happens if the CMB were produced by the ocean because the light never passes though the cluster, and yet you can see it clearly. You can't just claim this is a random coincidence either because this effect has been used to detect hundreds of new galaxy clusters. It's not the oceans, it's a real cosmic background.

It's the cosmic microwave background radiation. It's the earliest possible picture of the universe we can get, it's microwaves that were emitted as light around 400,000 years after the Big Bang. That curvy white line is the "equator" of the sphere. As you can see it goes right in between an area that is relatively hot and an area that is relatively cool, represented by the red and blue parts. The thrust of the problem is that the solar system is almost perfectly aligned with that equatorial line of the universe and lines up with the hot and cool parts. Which is strange because you wouldn't expected the position of the Solar System to have any relation to these features of the baby universe, and yet it seems like we're in a fairly special position.

>Thoughts on the axis of evil?

It's probably just coincidence. For one I don't think the alignment of the multipoles with each other is very significant. Yes it's very unlikely the quardrupole and octopole moments should be aligned with each other in standard cosmology but it's not terribly unlikely that any two of the low-l multipoles should be aligned. It's low significance and there's nothing you can really do to improve that. I think some of the other anomalies in the CMB are more convincing such as the hemispherical power asymmetry which could be tested with observations of galaxies.

>that equatorial line of the universe

Just to be clear the axis of evil isn't unique, observers far away from the Earth in the universe will measure a different CMB so this isn't some axis of the whole universe. It's probably very local because the low multipoles are strongly affected by the integrated Sachs Wolfe effect where the relatively local matter distribution changes the CMB as it passes by.

interesting, so as I understand this is a map of the observable universe just like the map of earth, hence the similar shape? however, I don't get the heat part, by heat you just mean microwave radiation, right? I also don't get the equator, to my understanding the earth is not restricted to travelling in the same path in the observable universe
also, wikipedia's map is quite different from OP's picture, is it because they set different thresholds?

and here is a map from NASA

> so as I understand this is a map of the observable universe just like the map of earth, hence the similar shape?
This is a map of the whole microwave sky. It's this shape because it's a Mollweide projection, which is just a sensible way of distorting the spherical map so it can be shown on a flat plane.

>I don't get the heat part, by heat you just mean microwave radiation, right?
The features you see (called anisotropies) show perturbations in the early universe. The red spots were a little hotter than average, and the blue spots were a little cooler.

>to my understanding the earth is not restricted to travelling in the same path in the observable universe
It's a map of the sky and the Earth's equator maps to a (relativity) fixed equator in the sky.

OP's map is based on the Planck map but it has the exaggerated axis of evil drawn on for effect. That map you show there is from a previous space mission which measured the CMB called WMAP.

That is the CMB as measured by the most recent mission, Planck. Planck is an European Space Agency mission, not NASA.

>assumptions i.e. ... black holes
I thought black holes certainly exist, haven't we detected them?

Forgot image.

The Earth isn't The Center of the universe, but The Center is looking at the Earth, right now.

PROTIP: It's impossible to describe anything without a reference point. If you disagree, then don't.

Everything you have ever seen is made of light. Depending on which medium the light passes through, the speed the light changes, relative to the medium... which is made of light. So light, can change the speed, of light. That's... weird.

no, you are weird
seek help maybe?

Perhaps it is more of a desert with mesas and the sand is keeping the ball forom rolling. Is it even a ball? Is it a tumble weed? Is it high noon?

>The Earth isn't The Center of the universe, but The Center is looking at the Earth, right now.
>PROTIP: It's impossible to describe anything without a reference point. If you disagree, then don't.
>Everything you have ever seen is made of light. Depending on which medium the light passes through, the speed the light changes, relative to the medium... which is made of light. So light, can change the speed, of light. That's... weird.

What if light cones collapse the wave functions of possible physics? I mean its the "its unobservable I ain't gotta prove shit" of theories but what if cosmic inflation basically rammed various "light cone universes" together.

Nothing could possibly interact beyond the primordial moments, but it might explain the weirdness we see at extreme scales.

Maybe the plasma cosmologists have a point and the "axis of evil" is due to the local supercluster.

Nope. Read the actual articles, not the pop-sci digest. The existence of black holes is still very much speculative (and will remain so forever, because they don't exist).

Plasma cosmologists don't have a point because they also, erroneously claim that the CMB is produced in our galaxy. It is clearly not for the same reasons given, it would never interact with distant galaxy clusters if it was local. Plasma cosmology is dead.

The SZ effect is not part of plasma cosmology.

The SZ effect can't cause the axis of evil because it changes the spectrum.

>they also, erroneously claim that the CMB is produced in our galaxy
This is news to my ears. To my knowledge they claim all plasma in the universe has a hand in producing the microwave background radiation, not that it's produced in our galaxy. We filter close sources out when measuring it anyway.

It is what Alfven himself claimed. Plasma cosmology today however is dead, no one is actively trying to reconcile it with the CMB. Plasma cosmology is not capable of explaining the perturbations observed on the CMB, there is no model for them so there is no model of anomalies. Saying plasma cosmology could explain it is ass-backwards because plasma cosmology can't explain the rest of the CMB, which standard cosmology predicted (pic related)

>all plasma in the universe has a hand in producing the microwave background radiation
The problem is a) its almost impossible to accidentally make a perfect black body by accident and b) it's very hard to get the isotropy to the extremely high level observed. Secondly if it was just produced by matter you would expect extremely strong correlations between the primary anisotropy and galaxies, this is not observed.

>explain how a multiverse is less likely to be true than someone creating our universe for the sake of life in our solar system.

A multiverse is just as likely to be true as our universe existing inside a marble in a green alien child's pouch.

Or the willfull creation of a God, made in six days.

How about you explain the multiverse in a convincing, verifiable way?

>Everything you have ever seen is made of light.
No it's not. You see light (photons) reflecting on matter, matter being different from the photons themselves. And normally photons are considered to be massless, so you're wrong on so many levels at once.

All flat Earth theories are invalidated in this thread

so give it to me straight, are we the center of the universe? that would be neat as fuck

>anomalies
>caused by something in the plane of the solar system
the planets' magnetic fields? the sun's magnetic field? the asteroid belt? background radiation doesn't just appear out of nowhere, right? it's been travelling for 13.6 billion years, surely something could have gotten in the way in that time

you mean people are too proud to admit when they remembered things wrong, so clearly reality must be wrong